DOCSLIB.ORG

A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project Located Near Ferndale, Humboldt County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project Located Near Ferndale, Humboldt County, California A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project Located near Ferndale, Humboldt County, California Prepared by: James Roscoe, M.A., Erik Whiteman, M.A., R.P.A. Jennifer Burns, M.A., R.P.A., and William Rich, B.A. With contributions by Jerry Rohde, M.A. and Suzie Van Kirk, B.A. Roscoe and Associates Cultural Resources Consultants 3781 Brookwood Drive Bayside, CA. 95524 Prepared for: Hank Seemann Humboldt County Department of Public Works Eureka, CA 95502 March 2008 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Archaeological and other heritage resources can be damaged or destroyed through uncontrolled public disclosure of information regarding their location. This document contains sensitive information regarding the nature and location of archaeological sites that should not be disclosed to unauthorized persons. Information regarding the location, character or ownership of a historic resource is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 470w-3 (National Historic Preservation Act) and 16 U.S.C. § 470hh (Archaeological Resources Protection Act) and California State Government Code, Section 6254.10. A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project Humboldt County, California March 2008 i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT SETTING ................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 8 2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ............................................................ 8 2.2 SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT ............................ 8 2.3 COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT ..................................................................................................... 9 3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 10 3.1 PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (13,500 TO 8,500 B.P.) ................................................................ 10 3.2 LOWER ARCHAIC (8,500 TO,5,000 B.P.) ............................................................................ 10 3.3 MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD (5,000 TO 2,500 B.P.) ........................................................... 10 3.4 UPPER ARCHAIC PERIOD (2,500 TO 1,100 B.P.) .............................................................. 11 3.5 LATE OR EMERGENT PERIOD (1,100 TO 150 B.P.) ......................................................... 11 3.6 POST CONTACT (150 B.P. TO PRESENT DAY) ................................................................ 12 4.0 ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 13 4.1 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ................................................................................................... 13 4.2 SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS .................................................................................................. 13 4.3 TECHNOLOGY AND MATERIAL CULTURE .................................................................... 14 4.4 ETHNOGEOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 14 5.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 15 5.1 EARLY EURO-AMERICAN ACTIVITY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LOWER EEL 15 5.2 FISHERIES ON THE LOWER EEL RIVER WATERSHED ................................................ 17 5.3 KENYONVILLE/KENYON’S LANDING/PORT KENYON ............................................... 22 5.4 WASHINGTON CORNERS/ARLYNDA CORNERS ........................................................... 43 6.0 METHODS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 44 6.1 PREFIELD RESEARCH ......................................................................................................... 44 6.2 FIELD INVENTORY .............................................................................................................. 46 6.3 INVENTORY RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 49 6.4 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................................. 63 6.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................... 67 6.6 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION ............................................................................. 69 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 70 7.1 PROTOCOLS FOR INADVERTENT DISCOVERIES ......................................................... 71 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources ................................................................... 71 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains ....................................................................... 71 8.0 REFERENCES CITED ...................................................................................................................... 73 Cover Photo: View to the north of Salt River from Riverside Ranch A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project Humboldt County, California March 2008 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1. Salt River Restoration, Project Vicinity Map. ............................................................................... 6 Figure 2. Project Location and Area of Potential Effect, Aerial Photograph. ............................................... 7 Figure 3. Portion of Belcher's Atlas (1921). ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 4. Survey Coverage Map, 1:24,000. ............................................................................................... 48 Figure 5. Resource Location and Culturally Sensitive Area Map, 1:24,000. ............................................. 50 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1. Previous Studies within ½ mile. ................................................................................................... 44 Table 2. Previous Cultural Resources recorded within ½ mile. .................................................................. 45 APPENDIX A Confidential Site Records APPENDIX B Native American Consultation APPENXIX C Historic Photos of Port Kenyon in “Culturally Sensitive Area”. A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project Humboldt County, California March 2008 iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This cultural resources investigation was conducted at the request of Hank Seemann of the Humboldt County Department of Public Works. The County of Humboldt, the Humboldt County Resource Conservation District, and other partners are working cooperatively to plan and implement the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as part of the environmental review process, requires that project proponents implement procedures to inventory cultural resources and to assess potential impacts on these resources located within projects conducted, funded, or permitted by State or Local Agencies. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) requires that, prior to an undertaking; federal agencies or projects permitted by federal agencies (the Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit) must take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties within the project’s Area of Potential Effect [APE (i.e. National Register of Historic Places [NRHP] listed or eligible)] and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to comment on how these effects have been considered. The aim of this report is to demonstrate that the public agencies have complied with CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA procedures prior to project implementation. This cultural resources investigation was designed to satisfy environmental requirements specified in CEQA and its guidelines (Title 14 CCR 15064.5) and Section 106 of NHPA by: (1) identifying and recording significant cultural resources within the project area and APE, (2) offering a preliminary significance evaluation of the identified cultural resources in accordance with a Phase I investigation, (3) assessing the potential impacts to cultural resources resulting from the implementation of proposed project activities, and (4) offering recommendations designed to protect resource integrity, as warranted. During the field investigation twelve historic era resources were identified. These include eight farmsteads (RA-SR-01 through 08), a linear dike and ditch system (RA-SR-09), a barn and corral (RA- SR-10), Salt River channel improvement features (RA-SR-11), and a cement feature at the site of Port Kenyon (RA-SR-12). In addition to the identified resources, one culturally sensitive area has been delineated within the project area. Surface survey did not detect cultural materials
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brock, Lowry, Leon, Bailey, Woodward, Maple, Brett, Cripe and Cooper Families Susie Van Kirk
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Susie Van Kirk Papers Special Collections 1-2013 Brock, Lowry, Leon, Bailey, Woodward, Maple, Brett, Cripe and Cooper Families Susie Van Kirk Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/svk Part of the Genomics Commons Recommended Citation Van Kirk, Susie, "Brock, Lowry, Leon, Bailey, Woodward, Maple, Brett, Cripe and Cooper Families" (2013). Susie Van Kirk Papers. 8. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/svk/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Collections at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Susie Van Kirk Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Susie Van Kirk Historic Resources Consultant P.O Box 568 Bayside, CA 95524 [email protected] 707-822-6066 January 2013 BROCK, LOWRY, LEON, BAILEY, WOODWARD, MAPLE, BRETT, CRIPE AND COOPER FAMILIES Addendum, Feb. 2013 FE (16 Feb. 1894) Erick Thorsen and Yarnell Cooper have been brought from Orleans to Eureka charged with grand larceny in having killed a beef belonging to C.S. Hoffman and used it for food. FE (9 March 1894) Yarnell Cooper has been held to answer to charge of grand larceny [Thorsen released] FE (3 May 1895) Mrs. Thos. Brett, aged 21 years, died at Hoopa a few days since, of consumption. 1880 U.S. Census, Humboldt county, Redwood; Willow Creek precinct [Indian residents] 8. Jim, Capt., 40, Calif. 9. Mary, 30, wife 10. George, 12, son 11. Mary, 30 sister 12.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right Thing to Do: Returning Land to the Wiyot Tribe
    THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Sociology May, 2008 THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson Approved by the Master’s Thesis Committee: Jennifer Eichstedt, Committee Chair Date Elizabeth Watson, Committee Member Date Judith Little, Committee Member Date Jennifer Eichstedt, Graduate Coordinator Date Chris Hopper, Interim Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE Karen Elizabeth Nelson In 2004, the Eureka City Council legally returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot tribe. This return occurred one hundred and forty four years after the Indian Island massacre. This research explores the returning of sacred tribal land in the context of collective apologies and reconciliations after generations of Native genocide. The significance of this case study includes a detailed narration of how the land transfer occurred and more importantly why it was labeled “the right thing to do” by Eureka City Council members and staff. This case study was examined with a grounded theory methodology. Using no hypotheses, the research and the research methodology unfolded in a non-linear process, letting the research speak for itself. Detailed interviews and a review of documents were used to qualify and quantify this unique community based social act. The results of this case study include how and why the Eureka City Council returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot people.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report
    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in partnership with the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Humboldt Redwood Company Summary Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Grantee Agreement: P1210516 Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report Prepared by: David Lam and Sharon Powers December 2016 Abstract Monitoring of coho salmon population spatial structure was conducted, as a component of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program, in the lower Eel River and its tributaries, inclusive of the Van Duzen River, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Potential coho salmon habitat within the lower Eel River and Van Duzen River study areas was segmented into a sample frame of 204 one-to-three kilometer stream survey reaches. Annually, a randomly selected subset of sample frame stream reaches was monitored by direct observation. Using mask and snorkel, surveyors conducted two independent pass dive observations to estimate fish species presence and numbers. A total of 211 surveys were conducted on 163 reaches, with 2,755 pools surveyed during the summers of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Coho salmon were observed in 13.5% of reaches and 7.5% of pools surveyed, and the percent of the study area occupied by coho salmon juveniles was estimated at 7% in 2013 and 2014, 3% in 2015, and 4% in 2016. i Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Main Eel (PDF)
    12 3° 55'0 "W 123 ° 52'30 "W 123 ° 50'0" W 123 °4 7'30 "W 123 °4 5'0" W 123 °4 2'30 "W 123°40'0"W 1 23° 3 7'30" W 1 23° 35 '0" W 1 23° 32 '30" W B 2 a Lar lc a b k o ee Cr e e 5 1 m S e 5 4 re 2 S C k l l C 3 w k r co i 4 Da ry e i i M M e t h f C re e t c t y a ns Can on 3 2 k C n a C C Bro w r x r h ee w a r A f th e k k B r e v e o e l e u G A l e e en D l e s ounta e l M k i r C r in a a n d n u o re C d R p l e l i t d l o s k i h C M a 7 M in eek d y r Cr C e is 11 S v re e a 12 e k c k D 10 8 o t 9 t v Pea C i n r e h Roa e d k e c P a n R e k 10 n th e a e o r 7 C R r a C l len 11 12 r d A e r 8 l 7 k e ek ig e k b e d r 12 Middle Main Eel Planninge 10 Watershed 89 10 n C re 9 i 11 12 e ek C s Cre l l W r 11 s 25 4 i k !( o M oo H reek r r C C 15 Dee k e 13 r e 18 14 C r C e 17 nack re ek b 16 K o st We 15 18 Fr Cree k 40°22'30"N Cre 17 s ek 14 15 tth ew 16 14 13 Ma 13 17 18 16 L 13 k i 14 e t k Existing Land Use e t Martin Cr e le re C 01S 03E V 15 a s 40 °2 2'30 "N n e r k D o ee u l r ze o in C n D 01Srt 04E T R 20 Ma ive h r k u 01S 05E N e e r wm r e m k a n C e 24 a 21 n e 19 r 22 C C 23 r n e r 23 e a k B k k 19 ee Perr e 24 21 k t C r ott Cre 20 n e 22 19 la k rth Cre k 24 B 24 k o e 23 k e e s w 20 23 e e e o r B e r 22 r C C 21 C e an l n p o m p s w p e a Ca N K m bi o n Cre h ek 26 T V i F la ek n r t Cre n e u k Boul d m 25 29 27 e R 28 e o r E 30 d a a South Fork Bar n C o d e 26 R C le l Poison Oak Creek Watersh ed tto 25 a Ma R m e i r 30 25 29 v o 29 28 27 25 n 26 28 e r Paci fi c Lu mber Co mpa ny C 26 k r 27
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Water Trails
    Aldergrove Marsh HBNWR To Trinidad 299 Arcata Ja ne s C Humboldt Bay reek National Wildlife Refuge ARCATA HIKING BY APPOINTMENT ONLY Arcata Community Bottoms 101 Forest Mad River k Slough e e r C Boat Ramp 255 s e n a BLM Manila J Dunes Mad River Arcata Marsh Slough Wildlife Area and Wildlife Manila Sanctuary h g ou Community l S l ie n Park Mc Da BAYSIDE MANILA Humboldt Bay National Manila Dunes Jac ob Recreation Area Wildlife y C r e e Refuge k a Arcata Bay l u s 255 n Bracut Ocean i n Marsh e P SAMOA Indian Island HBNWR Fay Slough Wildlife Area INDIANOLA see inset at left Murray Eureka Field a Slough Airport Slough Eurek Eureka a Boat Ramp o Pacific Marina m a S Eureka Marsh EUREKA FAIRHAVEN Samoa Boat Ramp 3 Corners County Park Sequoia h g Park u o l S n a Samoa Dunes Hilfiker y R N o r Recreation Area th Je Elk Beach tty River S o City ut h Jetty Wildlife Area DANGEROUS CURRENTS h g u o South Jetty l S i n Mar t Humboldt Bay t i Water Trails Map p Elk River State S Wildlife Area King Salmon Always yield to swimmers, motorized vessels and other watercraft. th u o S Water Trail Access Wildlife Viewing Area E l k Field's Landing R i Low Tide Water Trails v e County Park r Camping To High Tide Water Trails Headwaters Forest Reserve Public Lands FIELDS Interpretive Center LANDING Mud Flats HUMBOLDT Pedestrian Access HILL Parking Interpretive Trail Boat Launch 101 Wheelchair Accessible South Bay Marina Table Bluff County Park Restrooms Pets on Leash HBNWR Picnic Area Fishing Humboldt Bay National SCALE Wildlife Refuge KILOMETERS 0.5 1.5 2.5 KILOMETERS Table Bluff 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 N MILES 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 MILES 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 Hookton Slough Base map layer courtesy Natural Resources Services Boat Dock To Loleta Headwaters S:\Maps\Humboldt Bay Water Trails Map_2 sided.pdf (print 11x17 in color using HP ProB9180 printer) Forest Reserve S:\Maps\Humboldt Bay Water Trails Map_2 sided.pdf (print 11x17 in color using HP ProB9180 printer).
    [Show full text]
  • 3.6 Cultural Resources, Including Tribal Cultural Resources
    3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES This section presents an evaluation of the potential impacts of project implementation on cultural resources. “Cultural resources” is a general term that encompasses CEQA’s historical resource and unique archaeological resource (see Section 3.6.2, “Regulatory Setting,” for definitions of historical resources and unique archaeological resources). Cultural resources may include archaeological traces such as early Native American occupation sites and artifacts, historic-age buildings and structures, and places used for traditional Native American observances or places with special cultural significance. These materials can be found at many locations on the landscape, and along with prehistoric and historic human remains and associated grave-goods, are protected under various state and local statutes. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. During the public scoping comment period, comments relevant to tribal lands and artifacts, and previous Scotia EIRs that addressed historical resource planning, protection, and the special Scotia Historic Resource Protection zoning provisions were received. These topics are discussed in this section. 3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The information in this section was collected from the following cultural resources technical reports that were prepared for the project applicant. They included the results of a records search, lists
    [Show full text]
  • County Profile
    FY 2020-21 PROPOSED BUDGET SECTION B:PROFILE GOVERNANCE Assessor County Counsel Auditor-Controller Human Resources Board of Supervisors Measure Z Clerk-Recorder Other Funds County Admin. Office Treasurer-Tax Collector Population County Comparison Education Infrastructure Employment DEMOGRAPHICS Geography Located on the far North Coast of California, 200 miles north of San Francisco and about 50 miles south of the southern Oregon border, Humboldt County is situated along the Pacific coast in Northern California’s rugged Coastal (Mountain) Ranges, bordered on the north SCENERY by Del Norte County, on the east by Siskiyou and Trinity counties, on the south by Mendocino County and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The climate is ideal for growth The county encompasses 2.3 million acres, 80 percent of which is of the world’s tallest tree - the forestlands, protected redwoods and recreational areas. A densely coastal redwood. Though these forested, mountainous, rural county with about 110 miles of coastline, trees are found from southern more than any other county in the state, Humboldt contains over forty Oregon to the Big Sur area of percent of all remaining old growth Coast Redwood forests, the vast California, Humboldt County majority of which is protected or strictly conserved within dozens of contains the most impressive national, state, and local forests and parks, totaling approximately collection of Sequoia 680,000 acres (over 1,000 square miles). Humboldt’s highest point is sempervirens. The county is Salmon Mountain at 6,962 feet. Its lowest point is located in Samoa at home to Redwood National 20 feet. Humboldt Bay, California’s second largest natural bay, is the and State Parks, Humboldt only deep water port between San Francisco and Coos Bay, Oregon, Redwoods State Park (The and is located on the coast at the midpoint of the county.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Humboldt Bay Area, Humboldt County CWPP Final
    HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 HUMBOLDT BAY AREA PLANNING UNIT ACTION PLAN Humboldt Bay. Photo: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Digital Visual Library. Chapter 4.8: Humboldt Bay Area Planning Unit Action Plan HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 Table of Contents — Humboldt Bay Area 4.8 Humboldt Bay Area Planning Unit Action Plan ........................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.1 Humboldt Bay Area Planning Unit Description ................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.2 Humboldt Bay Area Assets and Values at Risk .................................................................... 4.8-2 4.8.3 Humboldt Bay Area Wildfire Environment ......................................................................... 4.8-3 4.8.4 Humboldt Bay Area Fire Protection Capabilities ................................................................ 4.8-7 4.8.5 Humboldt Bay Area Evacuation ........................................................................................ 4.8-10 4.8.6 Humboldt Bay Area Community Preparedness ................................................................ 4.8-11 4.8.7 Humboldt Bay Area Local Wildfire Prevention Plans ........................................................ 4.8-13 4.8.8 Humboldt Bay Area Community Identified Projects ......................................................... 4.8-14 4.8.9 Humboldt Bay Area Action Plan .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads For· Temperature and Sediment
    ., U.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for· Temperature and Sediment Approved by: l~ltl(Jl Alexis Strauss, Date Director, Water Division TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 1.1. OVERVIEW OF THE TMDL PROGRAM ................................................................... 1 1.2. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 2 1.3. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION.................................................... 4 1.4. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................. 7 2.1. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS............................................................................... 7 2.2. FISH POPULATION AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONCERNS......................... 9 2.3. STREAM TEMPERATURE PROBLEMS .................................................................. 14 2.4. SEDIMENT PROBLEMS ............................................................................................ 26 CHAPTER 3: TEMPERATURE TMDLS ............................................................................... 30 3.1. INTERPRETING THE EXISTING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TEMPERATURE ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Eel River & Tributaries PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC
    Management Agency: South Fork Eel River & Tributaries Bureau of Land Management ~ BLM Arcata Field Office PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS University of California ~ Angelo Coast Range Reserve These proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers support threatened Location: Mendocino County and endangered populations of salmon and steelhead and CA 2nd Congressional District rare plants. They also provide outstanding research Watershed: opportunities of nearly pristine undeveloped watersheds. South Fork Eel River Wild & Scenic River Miles: South Fork Eel River – 12.3 miles South Fork Eel River—12.3 The South Fork Eel River supports the largest concentration Elder Creek—7 of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in the region. East Branch South Fork Eel River—23.1 Cedar Creek—9.6 Federal officials recently identified the river as essential for the recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. The Outstanding Values: upper portion of this segment is located on the Angelo Anadromous fisheries, ecological, Biosphere Reserve, hydrological, wildlife, recreation Preserve managed for wild lands research by the University of California. Angelo Reserve access roads are open to For More Information: public hiking. The lower portion flows through the existing Steve Evans—CalWild [email protected] South Fork Wilderness managed by the BLM. The river (916) 708-3155 offers class IV-V whitewater boating opportunities. The river would be administered through a cooperative management agreement between the BLM and the State of California. Elder Creek – 7 miles This nearly pristine stream is a National Natural Landmark, Hydrologic Benchmark, and a UN-recognized Biosphere Reserve. A tributary of the South Fork Eel River, the creek is an important contributor to the South Fork’s anadromous Front Photo: South Fork Eel River fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • Thirsty Eel Oct. 11-Corrections
    1 THE THIRSTY EEL: SUMMER AND WINTER FLOW THRESHOLDS THAT TILT THE EEL 2 RIVER OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA FROM SALMON-SUPPORTING TO 3 CYANOBACTERIALLY-DEGRADED STATES 4 5 In press, Special Volume, Copeia: Fish out of Water Symposium 6 Mary E. Power1, 7 Keith Bouma-Gregson 2,3 8 Patrick Higgins3, 9 Stephanie M. Carlson4 10 11 12 13 14 1. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 15 [email protected] 16 17 2. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 18 [email protected]> 19 20 3. Eel River Recovery Project, Garberville CA 95542 www.eelriverrecovery.org; Email: 21 [email protected] 22 23 4. Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 24 94720; Email: [email protected] 25 26 27 Running head: Discharge-mediated food web states 28 29 Key words: cyanobacteria, discharge extremes, drought, food webs, salmonids, tipping points 30 31 Although it flows through regions of Northwestern California that are thought to be relatively well- 32 watered, the Eel River is increasingly stressed by drought and water withdrawals. We discuss how critical 33 threshold changes in summer discharge can potentially tilt the Eel from a recovering salmon-supporting 34 ecosystem toward a cyanobacterially-degraded one. To maintain food webs and habitats that support 35 salmonids and suppress harmful cyanobacteria, summer discharge must be sufficient to connect mainstem 36 pools hydrologically with gently moving, cool base flow. Rearing salmon and steelhead can survive even 37 in pools that become isolated during summer low flows if hyporheic exchange is sufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]