DOCSLIB.ORG

Ground-Water Conditions in the Eureka Area, Humboldt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ground-Water Conditions in the Eureka Area, Humboldt GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE EUREKA AREA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALJFORNIA, 197 5 U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 78-127 Prepared in cooperation with the Humboldt County Department of Public Works 11 . Report No. o. - BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 12. 3. Recipient's Accession 1 SHEET 4. T itlc and Subt itlc 5. Rep ort Date December GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE EUREKA AREA , HUMBOLDT 1978 - COUNTY, CALIFORNIA , 1975 6. 7. Author(s) s. Performing Organi za ti on R Johnson, Michael J . No .uSGS/WRI 78-127 ept . 9. Performin g Orga niza ti on Na me and Addr ess 10 . Proje ct/ Ta sk/Work Unit N~. u.s. Geological Survey , Water Resources Division 345 Middlefie ld Rd. 11. Co ntra ct/ Grant No. Menlo Park , Calif. 94025 12. Spo n orin g Organi z,ni on Nam e and Addr cs 13. Ty pt' of Report & Pe riod .overed u.s . Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Final 345 Middlefield Rd. Menlo Park, Calif. 94025 14. 15. Supplementary Nore s Prepared in cooperation with the Humboldt Count y Department of Public Works 16 · Ab'GP'cSlfnd-water conditions in the Eureka area were evaluated during 1975 to determine f'lh ether significant changes had occurred since 1952 , when an earlier reconnaissance was !nade . No major changes in water levels or water quality we r e noted at 1975 pumping rate Recharge to the ground-water system compensates for both artificial and natural discharge. rhe position of the freshwater- saltwater transition zone underlying the alluvial flood ?lains in the summer of 1975 were unchanged from those in 1 952 . Ground water continues 0 be used principally for irrigation on the alluvial flood plains of the Ee l and Mad Rivers . In 1975, about 425 irrigation wells supplied an estimated 24 , 000 a c re-feet of ;}round water to the Eureka area; half of those wells were located on the Eel Rive r flood ?lain . The estimated total ground-water pumpage for irrigation , industry, p ublic supply, :iomestic use, and livestock was 27 , 500 acre-feet . During the irrigation season, there s a highe r rate of recharge from the rivers wh ich helps to maintain ground-wate r s torage and stabilize the freshwater-seawa ter transition zone . 17 . Kq · 1\'urJs and Docum.-n t Analy sis. 17o. Descript ors Groundwater , ground·,;dter basins , groundwater recharge, pumping , California 17b. ld cntift er" Opt·n-l·ndt·J Terms Eureka area , Mad River , Eel River , saline water-freshwater interfaces 17c. CO:> ATI r- ,~ ld/ G r o up 18 . Avail ~ bi l i ry Statement 19 . Security Cla ss (Thi s 21. 1\ o. of Pa es Report) so No r e striction on distribution ·uNCLA SSIF lED 20. s .. cu ri ty Clas s (Th is 22. Pri ce 1-'Jgc UNCLA SSifiED 1 49~2 · P 7 2 THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED US COMM DC GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE EUREKA AREA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 1975 By Michael J. Johnson U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations 78-127 Prepared in cooperation with the Humboldt County Department of Public Works ~ 0 I m rl 0 ~ December 1978 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY H. William Menard, Director For additional information write to : District Chief Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Rd . Menlo Park , Calif. 94025 CONTENTS Page conversion factors-----------------------------------------------------­ IV Abstract---------------------------------------------------------------­ 1 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Purpose and scope-------------------------------------------------­ 2 Location and extent of study area---------------------------------­ 2 Previous investigations-------------------------------------------­ 4 Acknowledgments---------------------------------------------------­ 5 Well-numbering system---------------------------------------------- 5 Geology and ground-water occurrence------------------------------------­ 6 Recharge, movement, and discharge of ground water----------------------- 14 Water levels------------------------------------------------------------ 16 Freshwater-seawater transition zone------------------------------------- 19 Pumpage----------------------------------------------------------------- 28 Potential for additional development of ground water-------------------­ 32 Eel and Van Duzen River valleys-----------------------------------­ 34 Table Bluff-Eureka Plain------------------------------------------­ 37 Mad River flood plain---------------------------------------------- 38 Blue Lake area----------------------------------------------------- 39 Dows Prairie-McKinleyville area-----------------------------------­ 40 Suggestions for future studies and monitoring--------------------------­ 40 Summary and conclusions------------------------------------------------- 42 References cited-------------------------------------------------------- 43 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figures l-2. Maps showing-- 1. Location of study area--------------------------- 3 2. Generalized geology------------------------------ 8 3. Geologic sections , Eel River valley----------------------- 12 4. Map showing water-level contours-------------------------- 15 5 . Graph showing fluctuation of water levels in five wells, 1951-75------------------------------------------------- 17 6. Sketch showing relation of water table to river and direction of groun9-water flow during the rainy season and pumping season-------------------------------------- 18 7-8. Maps showing--· 7. Freshwater-seawater transition zone in the alluvial aquifer, Mad River valley , 1975------- 20 8. Freshwater-seawater transition zone in the alluvial aquifer, Eel River valley, 1975------- 21 9. Sketch showing transition wedge in shallow aquifer-------- 26 III D IV CONTENTS TABLES Page Table 1. Stratigraphic units of the Eureka area------------------------ 10 2. Ground-water quality data------------------------------------- 22 3. Irrigation pumpage---------------------------------------- - --- 29 4. Unit applied-water requirement by crop type for Humboldt County coastal areas------------------------------- --------- 30 5. Ground-water pumpage for all uses, 1975----------------------- 32 6. Estimates of storage capacity and recharge potential in the shallow aquifers of the Eureka area------------------------- 33 CONVERSION FACTORS The inch-pound system of units is used in this report. For those readers who prefer to use metric units rather than inch-pound units , the conversion factors for the terms used in this report are listed below: Inch-pound units Multiply by Metric units acre 4.047 X 10- 1 hm 2 (square hectometer) acre-ft (acre-foot) 1.233 X 10- 3 hm3 (cubic hectometer) acre-ft/yr (acre-foot 1.233 X 10- 3 hm 3 jyr (cubic hectometer per year) per year) ft (foot) 3.048 X 10- 1 m (meter) ft 3 js (cubic foot per 2.832 X 10- 2 m3 / s (cubic meter per second) second) ft/d (foot per day) 3.048 X 10- 1 m/d (meter per day) gal (gallon) 3 . 785 L (liter) gal/d {gallon per day) 3.785 L/d (liter per day) gal/min (gallon per minute) 6.308 X 10- 2 L/s (liter per second) (gal/min)/ft (gallon per 2 . 070 X 10- 1 (1/s)/m (liter per second minute per foot) per meter) inch 25 . 40 mm (millimeter) mi (mile) 1 . 609 km (kilometer) GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE EUREKA AREA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 1975 By Michael J. Johnson ABSTRACT Ground-water conditions in the Eureka area were evaluated during 1975 to determine whether significant changes had occurred since 1952, when an earlier reconnaissance was made. No major changes in water levels or water quality were noted at 1975 pumping rates. Recharge to the ground-water ?ystem compen­ sates for both artificial and natural discharge. The position of the freshwater-saltwater transition zone underlying the alluvial flood plains in the summer of 1975 were unchanged from those in 1952. Ground water continues to be used principally for irrigation on the alluvial flood plains of the Eel and Mad Rivers. In 1975, about 425 irriga­ tion wells supplied an estimated 24,000 acre-feet of ground water to the Eureka area; half of those wells were located on the Eel River flood plain. The estimated total ground-water pumpage for irrigation , industry, public supply, domestic use, and livestock was 27,500 acre-feet. During the irrigation season, when there is both natural and artificial discharge, water levels beneath the alluvial flood plains decline, and hy­ draulic gradients from the rivers to the alluvial flood plains are increased, thus accelerating recharge from the rivers. This accelerated recharge helps to maintain ground-water storage and to stabilize the freshwater-seawater transition zone during the irrigation season. It also results in a greater potential for future development of the ground-water resources beneath the Eel and Mad River flood plains than in cases of less rapidly recharged reservoirs. Without this recharge from the Mad River, additional ground-water development would be limited beneath the flood plain because irrigation pumpage of 4,100 acre-feet approaches the maximum one-time summer storage capacity of the alluvial aquifer. For the Eel River, a stable freshwater-seawater transition zone would not be maintained, although additional ground water could be devel­ oped because irrigation pumpage of 17,300 acre-feet is much less than the storage capacity. To better evaluate potential additional recharge induced by withdrawals for irrigation, it is recommended that more percolation tests be made along the Eel and Mad Rivers . Significant quantities of ground water may be available in the Eel River valley
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report
    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in partnership with the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Humboldt Redwood Company Summary Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Grantee Agreement: P1210516 Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report Prepared by: David Lam and Sharon Powers December 2016 Abstract Monitoring of coho salmon population spatial structure was conducted, as a component of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program, in the lower Eel River and its tributaries, inclusive of the Van Duzen River, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Potential coho salmon habitat within the lower Eel River and Van Duzen River study areas was segmented into a sample frame of 204 one-to-three kilometer stream survey reaches. Annually, a randomly selected subset of sample frame stream reaches was monitored by direct observation. Using mask and snorkel, surveyors conducted two independent pass dive observations to estimate fish species presence and numbers. A total of 211 surveys were conducted on 163 reaches, with 2,755 pools surveyed during the summers of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Coho salmon were observed in 13.5% of reaches and 7.5% of pools surveyed, and the percent of the study area occupied by coho salmon juveniles was estimated at 7% in 2013 and 2014, 3% in 2015, and 4% in 2016. i Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Opens a New Window
    3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section provides information regarding impacts of the proposed project on hydrology and water quality. The information used in this analysis is taken from: ► Water Supply Assessment for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project (Stantec 2019) (Appendix T); ► Humboldt County General Plan (Humboldt County 2017); ► North Coast Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (North Coast IRWMP) (North Coast Resource Partnership 2018); ► Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) (North Coast RWQCB 2018); ► the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Mapping Program (2018); ► National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data; and ► California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater (DWR 2003). 3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION Weather in the project area is characterized by temperate, dry summers and cool, wet winters. In winter, precipitation is heavy. Average annual rainfall can be up to 47 inches in Scotia (WRCC 2019). The rainy season, which generally begins in October and lasts through April, includes most of the precipitation (e.g., 90 percent of the mean annual runoff of the Eel River occurs during winter). Precipitation data from water years 1981–2010 for Eureka, approximately 20 miles north of the project area, show a mean annual precipitation of 40 inches (NOAA and CNRFC 2019). Mean annual precipitation in the project area is lowest in the coastal zone area (40 inches per year) and highest in the upper elevations of the Upper Cape Mendocino and Eel River hydrologic units to the east (85 inches per year) (Cal-Atlas 1996). The dry season, generally May through September, is usually defined by morning fog and overcast conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads For· Temperature and Sediment
    ., U.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for· Temperature and Sediment Approved by: l~ltl(Jl Alexis Strauss, Date Director, Water Division TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 1.1. OVERVIEW OF THE TMDL PROGRAM ................................................................... 1 1.2. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 2 1.3. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION.................................................... 4 1.4. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................. 7 2.1. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS............................................................................... 7 2.2. FISH POPULATION AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONCERNS......................... 9 2.3. STREAM TEMPERATURE PROBLEMS .................................................................. 14 2.4. SEDIMENT PROBLEMS ............................................................................................ 26 CHAPTER 3: TEMPERATURE TMDLS ............................................................................... 30 3.1. INTERPRETING THE EXISTING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TEMPERATURE ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Project Name
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation March 25, 2021 WILLIAMS CREEK RESTORATION PLAN Project No. 11-025-05 Project Manager: Michael Bowen RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $307,170 to the Humboldt County Resource Conservation District to conduct studies and prepare designs, permit applications, and a management plan for restoration of the Williams Creek watershed near Ferndale, Humboldt County, CA. LOCATION: Williams Creek watershed near Ferndale, Humboldt County, CA. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location Map Exhibit 2: Project Photos Exhibit 3: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution and findings. Resolution: The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of an amount not to exceed three hundred seven thousand one hundred seventy dollars ($307,170) to the Humboldt County Resource Conservation District (“the grantee”) to conduct studies and prepare designs, permit applications, and a management plan for the enhancement of the Williams Creek watershed near Ferndale, CA. Prior to commencement of the project, the grantee shall submit for the review and written approval of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy (Executive Officer) the following: 1. A detailed work program, schedule, and budget. 2. Names and qualifications of any contractors to be retained in carrying out the project. 3. A plan for acknowledgement of Conservancy funding and Proposition 1 as the source of that funding. Page 1 of 9 WILLIAMS CREEK RESTORATION PLAN Findings: Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1. The proposed authorization is consistent with Chapter 5.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, regarding integrated coastal and marine resources protection.
    [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]
  • FC TTS Report 2017
    Francis Creek Annual Suspended Sediment Yield Turbidity Threshold Sampling Summary Report Hydrologic Year 2017 Site FRC – 1099 Van Ness Avenue Ferndale, California A collaborative project between Humboldt County Resource Conservation District County of Humboldt City of Ferndale State Coastal Conservancy Ducks Unlimited California Department of Water Resources National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Conservation Board U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service For the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project By Clark Fenton 8-2-17 final Francis Creek HY 2017 Annual Report Page 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Salt River Implementation Monitoring Site FRC map Turbidity Threshold Sampling HY 2017 stage / turbidity plots 2. Francis Creek 2017 Suspended Sediment Annual Load Francis Creek HY 2017 suspended sediment quantities Annual Suspended Sediment load / yield summary table 2008 to 2017 Sarah Wilson Report Storm Load Summary Table - Hydrologic Year 2017 3. Large storm events Hydrologic Year 2017 HY 2017 largest storm turbidity / stage plot 4.Suspended Sediment % Sand Fraction Analysis Hydrologic Year 2017 5.Francis Creek Stream Channel Aggradation Surveys 2007 to 2016 6. Francis Creek Ranch Slide – March 2011 CGS Report Suspended Sediment Yields 7. Field & Lab Operations Hydrologic Year 2017 Methods – Equipment – Challenges Discharge Measurements - Francis Creek Discharge Rating Curve 8. Summary 8. References / Bibliography 9. Appendices – Data CD Appendix 1 – S. Wilson Suspended Sediment Load Reports FRC HY 2007 to HY 2017 Appendix 2 – Suspended Sediment Concentration Data FRC HY 2007 to HY 2017 Appendix 3 – Discharge Data Francis Creek HY 2007 to HY 2017 Appendix 4 – Standard Operating Procedures HY 2007 to HY 2017 Appendix 5 – Turbidity Threshold Sampling Data Files FRC HY 2007 to HY 2017 Appendix 6 – HY 2007 to HY 2017 Raw Data Appendix 7 – CGS Francis Creek Ranch Slide Report / Salt River EIR Francis Creek HY 2017 Annual Report Page 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering the South Spit of Humboldt Bay Mark E
    ,,; STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION '- 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 ICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 X ( 415) 904- 5400 • !"'~~ ;·•••mt ':·.•' ,''" nr'. ~ ~'t r,._ l' r '''-· COPY W12a STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION Consistency Determination No. CD-052-02 Staff: LJS-SF File Date: 7/12/02 60th Day: 9/10/02 75th Day: extended through 12/13/02 Commission Meeting: 12/11102 FEDERAL AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management • PROJECT LOCATION: Humboldt Bay South Spit, Humboldt County (Exhibits 1-2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implementation of the South Spit Interim Management Plan, a three-year plan to provide a baseline level of visitor services, public uses, resource protection, monitoring, and habitat restoration until the long-term management plan for the South Spit is developed. SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: 1. South Spit Interim Management Plan, July 10, 2002 (BLM). 2. Environmental Assessment for the South Spit Interim Management Plan, July 2002 (BLM). 3. Biological Assessment for Arcata Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Interim Management Plan for Lands on the South Spit of Humboldt Bay, Managed under Conservation • Easement by the Bureau of Land Management, July 2002 (BLM) . CD-052-02 (BLM) Page2 4. Formal Consultation on the Interim Management Plan for Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management on the South Spit ofHumboldt Bay, California, September 11,2002 (U.S. • Fish and Wildlife Service). 5. South Spit Access Improvements (State Coastal Conservancy), August 8, 2002. 6. Adopted Findings for Humboldt County LCP Amendment No. 1-93 (Beach and Dunes Management Plan), December 13, 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of the Mad River Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest, California
    WESTEt BIRDS Volume 29, Number 2, 1998 BIRDS OF THE MAD RIVER RANGER DISTRICT, SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA JOHN E. HUNTER, USDA Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest, 1330 BayshoreWay, Eureka,California 95501 GJON C. HAZARD, Department of Wildlife, HumboldtState University,Arcata, California 95521 The Mad River RangerDistrict (MRRD) of the Six RiversNational Forest (SRNF)is locatedin northwesternCalifornia (Figure 1). We compileddata on the statusand distribution of the birdsof thisarea for threeprimary reasons. First,except for collectingtrips to SouthFork Mountain and nearby areas in the 1930s (Grinnelland Miller 1944), thisarea hasbeen littlestudied (Harris 1996). Whilethe MRRD wasincluded by Harris(1991, 1996), we soughtto providemore detailed information for a uniquearea. Second, we hopedto provideresource managers and otherswith localstatus and distribution data. Much of our data has been gleanedfrom obscuresources not generally accessibleto mostworkers. While more detailed distribution and life history dataare neededfor mostspecies, this report can serve as a startingpoint for furthermanagement considerations and research.Third, while the MRRD containsseveral noteworthy birding areas in Humboldt(e.g., Mount Lassic and BlakeMountain) and Trinity(e.g., RuthLake, HettenshawValley, and Ant Point)counties, the isolationof thisarea relativeto populationcenters hasresulted in relativelylittle recreational birdwatching to date.We hopethis report will stimulateothers to explorethe MRRD and other portionsof interior northwestern
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of the Log Boom Humboldt County Logging from 1945 to 1955 Logging in Humboldt County in Northwestern California Began in 1850
    Paul G. Wilson The Legacy of the Log Boom Humboldt County Logging from 1945 to 1955 Logging in Humboldt County in northwestern California began in 1850. When settlers first saw the giant old growth coast redwoods in Humboldt County they were in awe of them. These trees had diameters up to 30 feet and heights up to almost 400 feet. Old growth redwood trees are the oldest living things on earth; they can live about two thousand years. The settlers of Humboldt County had a respect for the redwoods; however, the settlers saw an immediate profit to be made. Old growth redwood lumber was used to build houses, railroad ties, shingle bolts, fence posts, and grape stakes.1 Redwood timberland in Humboldt County was located near the coast and extended twenty-five miles inland. The mills that cut the redwood logs into dimension sized lumber were located on the shores of Humbolt Bay. Humboldt Bay was a safe place for ocean vessels to pick up loads of redwood lumber to be sent to San Francisco Bay. Lumber vessels were often overloaded with redwood lumber. Because the vessels were piled with lumber, the vessels were believed to be unsinkable.2 Redwood lumber was sent all over the world for its preference in woodworking. In 1878 the United States government passed the Timber and Stone Act which allowed loggers to buy 160 acres of timberland for $2.50 per acre as long as the loggers "improved" the land through logging and ranching. Loggers acquired thousands of acres of redwood land and often formed partnerships to begin lumber companies.
    [Show full text]
  • COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT Oncorhynchus Clarkii Clarkii (Richardson)
    COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii (Richardson) Moderate Concern. Status Score = 2.7 out of 5.0. Coastal cutthroat trout populations in California are small, fragmented, and face multiple threats, including cumulative impacts from land use practices and predicted outcomes of climate change in their range. However, their numbers appear to be stable in the few watersheds they inhabit along the Northern California coast. Description: Coastal cutthroat trout are similar in appearance to coastal rainbow trout (O. mykiss) but have heavier spotting, particularly below the lateral line, and heavy spots on ventral fins. Adults have spotting on the lower mandible and more pointed heads than coastal rainbow trout. The spots become nearly invisible when fish become silvery during smolting and migrations to and from the sea. Mature fish in fresh water have a dark coppery or brassy appearance, especially on the fins (Behnke 1992, Moyle 2002). Cutthroat trout are more slender than rainbow trout and possess characteristic red to orange to yellow slashes under the mandibles, though the slashes are rarely visible until the fish reach over 80 mm total length (TL) (Scott and Crossman 1973, Behnke 1992). Larger fish have long maxillary bones extending past the eye. Well-developed teeth are found on the jaws, vomer, palatines, tongue, and sometimes on the basibranchial bones (Rizza 2015). The dorsal fin has 9-11 rays, the anal fin 8-12 rays, the pelvic fins 9-10 rays, and the pectoral fins 12-15 rays. There are 15-28 gill rakers on each arch and 9-12 branchiostegal rays. The caudal fin is moderately forked and scales are smaller than those of rainbow trout, with 140-200 along the lateral line (Behnke 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Status Review of Eulachon and Pacific Lamprey in the Klamath River Basin
    A preliminary status review of eulachon and Pacific lamprey in the Klamath River Basin Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program 159OO Hwy 101 N Klamath CA 95548 Zachary S. Larson Michael R. Belchik April I998 INTRODUCTION Eulachon (Thaleicthys pacificus) and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) are two species of anadromous fish found throughout the northwestern United States and western Canada that have received little attention relative to salmonid species. Consequently, with few exceptions, very little is known of their status or population trends. Eulachon are one of several species of smelts (Osmeridae) that occur off the coast of California. Their spawning migration takes them further into freshwater inlets than any other smelt within their range. They are prized by many tribes of the Pacific Northwest for their taste, and have been tied to tribal culture for centuries. Pacific lamprey are also harvested and considered a delicacy by tribes of the Pacific Northwest; however, lamprey migrate further up rivers and tributaries to spawn than do eulachon, often utilizing habitat hundreds of miles inland from the ocean (Scott and Crossman 1973). On the Klamath River of northwest California (Fig. l), eulachon and Pacific lamprey are of great importance to the Yurok Tribe but runs have diminished in the past few decades and no efforts have been made to determine factors contributing to apparent declines. Eulachon have apparently disappeared in the Klamath River and other nearby coastal drainages -- only a handful of fish have been witnessed since 1988 (CDFG unpublished data 1988-89, YTFP 1998). Pacific lamprey have exhibited a more gradual decline but little quantitative evidence is available.
    [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]