DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan Draft Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan for Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon Central Valley spring-run Chinook Salmon Central Valley Steelhead National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region November 2009 1 Themes of the CV Recovery Plan • This is a long-term plan that will take several decades to fully implement • The recovery plan is intended to be a “living document” that is periodically updated to include the best available information regarding the status or needs of the species • Implementation will be challenging and will require the help of many stakeholders • The plan is intended to have realistic and attainable recovery criteria (i.e, de-listing criteria) 2 What are Recovery Plans? • Purpose of the Endangered Species Act: To conserve (recover) listed species and their ecosystems • Required under section 4(f) of the ESA for all Federally listed species • Provide the road map to species recovery • Must contain objective, measurable criteria for delisting a species • Guidance documents, not regulations 3 Winter-run Chinook salmon (Endangered) 4 Status of Species – Winter-run Chinook 5 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon (Threatened) 6 Status of Species – Spring-run Chinook Declining abundance across range: Extinction risk is increasing Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon Adult Summer Holding Escapement Rivers/Creeks 25,000 Sacramento Battle 20,000 Clear Beegum 15,000 Antelope Mill 10,000 Deer Big Chico 5,000 Butte 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 7 Central Valley steelhead (Threatened) 8 Key Threats • Dams: Block passage; 95% loss of spawning habitat for Central Valley salmonids • Water Diversions: Juvenile entrainment and flow modifications • In-river Predation: Contributes to low juvenile survival rates • Climate: Recent coastal upwelling conditions, long-term precipitation patterns • Habitat Loss and Fragmentation: loss of floodplain and riparian habitat • Hatcheries: Hybridization and reduced fitness • Fishery Effects: Ocean harvest of winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon • Water Quality: Impaired water quality in the lower river systems and the Delta 9 Recovery Planning Foundational Principles: • Apply concepts of VSP Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) • Technical Recovery Team: Population structure, extinction risk, species viability • Recovery must address the entire natural ecosystem (freshwater spawning, rearing and migration areas; estuarine habitats, and the Pacific Ocean) • Viable populations require a network of complex and interconnected habitats, which are created, altered, and maintained by natural physical process • Recovery strategies must address key threats 10 Central Valley r Chinook Salmon e iv R r o e t v n i e R m d a r u Diversity Groups c lo a C S c le M r t ive it it R L P Basalt and Porous Lava r Redding C C r ow C a reek e l C eek Northern Sierra Nevada tle Cr ek Bat um Cre Cottonwood Cr S Beeg .F. Ba ttle Cr eek e Cr Northwestern California elop Ant Red Bluff k ree ill C ek M Cre er Southern Sierra Nevada De eek Cr r s e me v ho i T R r e City h o t S c a to i e ny h F C C Central Valley r e g ek i B River/Creek k e e North Yuba River k r e C e te r t u C B y Diversity Groups n m to e t S s n i a South Yuba River M - r e v i R North Fork American River r e h t a e F These are ecoregions for Middle Fork American River spawning populations South Fork American River Sacramento • NW California Mokelumne River North Fork Stanislaus River Delta Stockton • Basalt and Porous Lava Tuolumne River Merced River Modesto • Northern Sierra Merced S a n J o a q u in • Southern Sierra R iv e r Fresno 11 Proposed Recovery Strategy A two-pronged approach • Secure existing populations (and habitat) — Core 1 Populations: Independent populations — Core 2 Populations: Dependent populations — Core 3 Populations: Small, ephemeral populations • Reintroduce fish to historic habitats — Primary candidate reintroduction areas — Secondary candidate reintroduction areas — Areas not considered for reintroduction 12 Area of Detail R OTT CR NES SC UM COS MO KELU K r MN F e E R, v S F N i K , R R S s PARDEE RE S u C U la A s a L i l IS n K if N ta F o A N T S , r S R n E i N a M U L O U er T iv e R Southern Sierra ! mn olu Tu NE R ! TUOLUM New! FK Melones , M E R Diversity Group R MN U GoodwinS! Tulloch OL U!! TU LA ! IS ! N ! ! A !! ! T ! !!! K S ! F ! !!!!!!!!! ! L r N ! A ! e ! Don Pedro , ! K iv R R R E D E ! MERC ed c D Mer La Grange M ! E TUOLUM !!! C N C E R! C !! !! ! ! ! R !! !! ! L !!! ! ! ! New U E R S FK M , Exchequer RCED R Core 1 and 2 Populations E ME !! R D ! ! E !! ! McSwain r C Oroville! e R ! iv E !!!!!! ! !! M !! R !!!! in • Calaveras steelhead !! u q New Bullards a o J an • Stanislaus steelhead S Englebright rre gue • Tuolumne steelhead Da r Friant ive • Merced steelhead Kings R ! ! ! !! R !! UIN !!! OAQ !!!! !!! ! AN J S ! ! Priority Areas for Reintroduction Fresno ! • San Joaquin River spring-run Chinook below Friant • Conduct feasibility studies and CV Spring Chinook habitat evaluations in other historic ! Passage Impediment " Dams watersheds # City ± River/Creeks Southern Sierra Nevada Populations 04.5 9 18 27 36 45 County Boundaries Miles 13 Multispecies Recovery Actions • Restore the ecological habitat function and reduce non-native fish predation in the lower Sacramento and San Joaquin River and the Delta • Provide ecological flows throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins and the Delta • Develop phased reintroduction plans for primary candidate watersheds • Implement all phases of the Battle Creek Restoration Program • Implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Program • Reduce the harvest of listed salmon in commercial and recreational ocean fisheries 14 Area of Detail R OTT CR NES SC UM COS MO KE K r LU F MN e E R, v S F N i K , R R S s PARDEE RE S u C U a A l a L is S l I n K if N ta F o A N T S , r S R n E ia MN U L O U er T iv e R ! mn olu Tu NE R ! TUOLUM New! FK Melones , M E R R UMN GoodwinS! Tulloch UOL U!! T LA ! IS ! N ! ! A !! ! T ! !!! K S ! F ! !!!!!!!!! ! L r ! N ! A e ! Don Pedro , ! K iv R R R E D E ! MERC ed c D er La Grange M M ! E TUOLUM !!! C NE C !! R! ! C !! ! L R !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! New U E R S FK M Exchequer CED R, E MER !! R D ! ! ! EOroville! ! McSwain r C ! e R ! iv E !!!!!! ! !! M !! R !!!! in !! u Southern Sierra New Bullards q a o J an S Englebright rre gue Diversity Group Da r Friant ive Kings R ! ! ! !! R !! UIN !!! OAQ !!!! !!! ! AN J S ! ! Fresno ! Recovery Actions CV Spring Chinook • Evaluate fish passage feasibility throughout SJ basin ! Passage Impediment " Dams # City ± River/Creeks Southern Sierra Nevada Populations 04.5 9 18 27 36 45 County Boundaries Miles • Develop and implement instream flow schedules in consideration of physical habitat modeling and life stage requirements — Cold water pool management • Improve lower San Joaquin River habitat conditions: — Floodplain availability, contaminant reductions, Stockton Ship Channel • Implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Program 15 Central Valley r Chinook Salmon e iv R r o e t v n i e R m d a r u Diversity Groups c lo a C S c le M r t ive it it R L P Basalt and Porous Lava r Redding C C r ow C a reek e l C reek Northern Sierra Nevada ttle C eek Ba m Cr Cottonwood Cr S Beegu .F. Ba ttle Cr eek e Cr Northwestern California elop Ant Red Bluff k ree ill C ek M Cre er Southern Sierra Nevada De eek Cr r s e me v ho i T R r e City h o t S c a to i e ny h F C C r e g ek i B River/Creek k e e North Yuba River k r e C e te r t u C B y n m o t e t S s n i a South Yuba River M - r e v i R North Fork American River r e h t a e F Middle Fork American River South Fork American River Sacramento Proposed Recovery Criteria Mokelumne River North Fork Stanislaus River Delta Stockton Tuolumne Rive r Merced River Modesto Merced S a n J o a q u in R iv e r DPS/ESU scale Fresno • At least two viable independent populations per diversity group • One dependent population per diversity group Population scale • Viable populations: >2,500 spawning adults & low hatchery influence each year for at least 10 years Threat abatement criteria • Specific criteria that address threats and factors affecting the species 16 Achieving Recovery NMFS Agencies Environmental Factors Institutional Stakeholders Education/ Outreach Changes 17 Next Steps • Draft Recovery Plan available at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/centralvalleyplan.htm • 120-day Public Comment Period October 7 – February 3 • Review all comments and revise Recovery Plan accordingly • Issue Final Recovery Plan 2010 Comments may be submitted: • Via email - [email protected] • Via regular mail - National Marine Fisheries Service, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300, Sacramento, CA 95814 18.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SWFSC Archive
    Historical Population Structure of Central Valley Steelhead and its Alteration by Dams STEVEN T. LINDLEY1, ROBERT S. SCHICK1, ADITYA AGRAWAL2, MATTHEW GOSLIN2, THOMAS E. PEARSON2, ETHAN MORA2, JAMES J. ANDERSON3, BERNARD MAY4, SHEILA GREENE5, CHARLES HANSON6, ALICE LOW7, DENNIS MCEWAN7, R. BRUCE MACFARLANE1, CHRISTINA SWANSON8 AND JOHN G. WILLIAMS9 ABSTRACT Effective conservation and recovery planning for Central Valley steelhead requires an understanding of historical population structure. We describe the historical structure of the Central Valley steelhead evolutionarily significant unit using a multi-phase modeling approach. In the first phase, we identify stream reaches possibly suitable for steelhead spawning and rearing using a habitat model based on environmental envelopes (stream discharge, gradient, and temperature) that takes a digital elevation model and climate data as inputs. We identified 151 patches of potentially suitable habitat with more than 10 km of stream habitat, with a total of 25,500 km of suitable habitat. We then measured the dis- tances among habitat patches, and clustered together patches within 35 km of each other into 81 dis- tinct habitat patches. Groups of fish using these 81 patches are hypothesized to be (or to have been) independent populations for recovery planning purposes. Consideration of climate and elevation differ- ences among the 81 habitat areas suggests that there are at least four major subdivisions within the Central Valley steelhead ESU that correspond to geographic regions defined by the Sacramento River basin, Suisun Bay area tributaries, San Joaquin tributaries draining the Sierra Nevada, and lower-ele- vation streams draining to the Buena Vista and Tulare basins, upstream of the San Joaquin River.
    [Show full text]
  • Yuba River Temperature Monitoring Project
    YUBA RIVER TEMPERATURE MONITORING PROJECT Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento/San Joaquin River Fishery Restoration Office Michael L. Deas, P.E. February 28, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents.........................................................................................................2 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................3 1.1 Project Objective.............................................................................................3 1.2 Project Organization and Acknowledgements..................................................3 2. Project Summary.....................................................................................................4 2.1 Monitoring Locations......................................................................................4 2.2 Deployment/Field Work..................................................................................5 2.3 Quality Control ...............................................................................................5 2.4 Additional Data Sources..................................................................................5 2.5 Data Sets.........................................................................................................7 3. Findings..................................................................................................................8 3.1 Important Processes ........................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • A. INTRODUCTION the Devil's Basin Research Natural Area (DBRNA
    A. INTRODUCTION The Devil's Basin Research Natural Area (DBRNA) lies within the Corning Ranger District, Mendocino National Forest (Maps 1 and 2). The California black oak (Quercus kelloggii1)stands and surrounding areas of Devil's Basin were first reconnoitered in 1984 (Henry 1984), and subsequently proposed as a representative of the California Black Oak Woodland type (Holland 1986). An ecological survey of the basin was completed in 1987 (Newton 1987). Unless otherwise noted, information contained in this Establishment Record is based on this ecological survey. The DBRNA has had no history of intensive use such as logging or grazing. The DBRNA is entirely under public ownership with the Mendocino National Forest. 1) Land Management Planning The establishment of Devil's Basin RNA is recommended and evaluated in the Mendocino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1995) and the Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices for the LRMP (U.S.D.A. Forest Service 1995a-c). The land allocation for the Devil's Basin RNA was decided by the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the LRMP by the Regional Forester (1995). The establishment of the DBRNA is completed upon signature of this Establishment Record with concurrence of the Station Director. The area lies within the Research Natural Areas Management Area #5 allocated to Management Prescription #11 which emphasizes the preservation of natural conditions and the protection of features for which the RNA was established (Appendix 3). B. OBJECTIVES The primary purpose for establishment of the DBRNA is to preserve a representative of a Black Oak Woodland ecosystem and its associates in a condition minimally modified by humans within the North Coast Physiographic Province for their scientific value and educational importance.
    [Show full text]
  • SIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN and RECORD of DECISION
    United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management SIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN and RECORD OF DECISION For the Folsom Field Office California December 2007 _________________________________________ William S. Haigh, Folsom Field Office Manager __________________________________________ Mike Pool, California State Director Sierra Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision_____________________________________ This page intentionally left blank. Sierra Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision__________________________ Table of Contents 1.0 Record of Decision ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Changes from the Proposed RMP to the Approved RMP.......................................................... 1 1.2 Alternatives.............................................................................................................................2 1.3 Management Considerations...................................................................................................3 1.4 Mitigation ...............................................................................................................................3 1.5 Plan Monitoring.......................................................................................................................4 1.6 Public Involvement..................................................................................................................4 1.7 Administrative Remedies.........................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Diverse Metamorphic Trajectories, Imbricated Ocean Plate Stratigraphy, and Fault Rocks, Yuba River Area, Feather River Ultramafic Belt, California
    ABSTRACT DIVERSE METAMORPHIC TRAJECTORIES, IMBRICATED OCEAN PLATE STRATIGRAPHY, AND FAULT ROCKS, YUBA RIVER AREA, FEATHER RIVER ULTRAMAFIC BELT, CALIFORNIA The Feather River Belt (FRB), the most extensive of the ultramafic belts in the Sierra Nevada, is a north–south trending 150-km-long by 1-8 km wide ultramafic belt and includes related rocks that form the basement of the northern Sierra Nevada of California. These rocks have been long interpreted as a Paleozoic to early Mesozoic "suture" zone (position of former subduction zone) and provide a good opportunity to more closely investigate the details of the rock record associated with subduction processes. Conventional tectonic models cannot explain the spatial-temporal distribution of the metamorphic grade of the FRB. Geologic mapping, petrographic, and electron microprobe analyses reveal a complex spatial and relative time relationships between different lithologies and units of different metamorphic grade. In the greater Middle and North Yuba River area, ultramafic rocks structurally overlie amphibolite, composed of primarily metamafic rocks, that structurally overlies the blueschist facies Red Ant schist (RAS). These tectonic contacts have been isoclinally folded at scales of hundreds of meters to a km. In the North Yuba River area, amphibolite records low- pressure, high-temperature metamorphism with redbrown (high Ti, low Al) amphibole and ilmenite. In the Forest City and Alleghany areas on the North Fork-Middle Fork divide, amphibolite grade rocks comprise imbricates of ocean plate stratigraphy, represented by repeated sheets of metabasites, metacherts, and metaclastics. These rocks include zones of cataclasites with pseudotachylites (frictional melts generated by fault movement). The Alleghany amphibolites ii appear to comprise two slabs with contrasting metamorphic history.
    [Show full text]
  • Philanthropy Just at the Restore Wildlands, Wild Rivers and Leverage Public and Private Funds for Moment in History When Sierra Conservation
    The Sierra Fund SAVING THE SIERRA 2001-2005 . Organizational Report Our Mission The mission of The Sierra Fund is to protect and preserve the Sierra Nevada. As an innovative community foundation for the environment, we do this by partnering with private donors and public agencies to increase and organize investment in the land, air, water and human resources of the Sierra Nevada. Our Philosophy The Sierra Fund ~ • Works to develop new sources of individual, foundation and corporate funding to help solve the region’s environmental crises. • Expands the capacity of community-based organizations already hard at work protecting the Sierra Nevada, helping to ensure their success and sustainability. • Supports a full toolbox of conservation solutions aimed at effective action, from community organizing, collaboration and education to litigation and legislative advocacy. • Leverages private financial capital to inspire larger, long-term public conservation investments in the resources of the Sierra Nevada. www.sierrafund.org Front cover photo of the South Fork American River. The Sierra Fund successfully advocated for $2 million in state funds in partnership with the American River Conservancy to complete acquisition of 2,315 acres and finish the 8-mile trail from Salmon Falls to the Gold Discovery Park. DEAR FRIENDS OF THE SIERRA, The Sierra Nevada, the jeweled crown of California, is a rugged, 400-mile-long mountain range that borders the state’s eastern edge. Dubbed the “Range of Light” by John Muir more than 100 years ago, the Sierra inspires the human imagination and powers the human spirit. This range features the tallest mountains in the continental United States and boasts the singular jewels of Lake Tahoe and Yosemite Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeking an Understanding of the Groundwater Aquifer Systems in the Northern Sacramento Valley
    SEEKING AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE GROUNDWATER AQUIFER SYSTEMS IN THE NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY Allan Fulton1, Toccoy Dudley2, Kelly Staton2, Debbie Spangler2 SOUND CONCEPT OR MISCONCEPTION To many people, the Sacramento Valley appears as an expansive groundwater basin filled with freshwater. It is also common to conceptualize the groundwater basin as an underground lake or a series of underground rivers that provide water to wells. Are these sound concepts or misconceptions? Recent interpretation of over 150 down-hole electrical resistivity logs from widely scattered locations throughout much of the northern Sacramento Valley has revealed that these simplistic concepts are incorrect. This pamphlet provides a glimpse of ongoing studies of the aquifer systems in the northern Sacramento Valley. The findings are preliminary and will likely improve as further information is gathered. Comprehensive reports of these studies should be available later in 2004. KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND NEW INVESTIGATIONS Concepts are easily formed and rationalized and can appear to be factual without sufficient field research to validate them. Until recently, only three regional investigations of the aquifer systems in the Sacramento Valley had been completed in the past 80 years and none were conducted since the mid 1970’s. Since 1997, the California Department of Water Resources, Northern District, Groundwater Section, headquartered in Red Bluff, California, has been conducting new investigations into the saline and freshwater aquifer systems in the northern Sacramento Valley. Findings from their investigations offer a greater understanding of the geology and hydrogeology in the northern Sacramento Valley. METHODS USED IN RECENT GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONS Geologic cross-sections have been and are currently being developed to help understand the sub-surface hydrogeology of the northern Sacramento Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
    4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section evaluates potential hydrology and water quality impacts that could result from the proposed SOI Plan update (proposed project). Information in this section comes from County of Nevada GIS mapping analysis as well as existing federal, state, and local regulations. The evaluation includes a discussion of the proposed project compatibility with these required applicable regulations and provides mitigation measures, if needed and as appropriate that would reduce these impacts. The following analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to hydrology and water quality is derived primarily from the following sources and agencies: • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); • United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); • Regional Water Resources Control Board (RWQCB); • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); • Nevada City Zoning Ordinance 4.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The area climate generally consists of dry and mild to hot summers and relatively wet winters. In the upper elevation around Nevada City (City) and Grass Valley, snow levels are usually above 5,000 ft. The averages minimum and monthly maximum temperatures of from the Nevada City area in the foothills to the valley area near the Town of Lincoln from approximately 26 to 93 degrees Fahrenheit (oF). The proposed SOI Plan update area is in the eastern portion of the service area and encircles the City. In this area, the City’s jurisdictional boundaries include approximately 1,470 incorporated acres (2018, Nevada County GIS data) and the current SOI (exclusive of the incorporated area) includes approximately 2,702 acres.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3 Existing Environment
    Yuba County Water Agency Narrows Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 1403 SECTION 3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT In addition to this introductory information, this section is divided into two subsections. Section 3.1 provides a general description of the river basin in which the Project occurs. Section 3.2 provides existing, relevant and reasonably available information regarding the resources. 3.1 General Description of the River Basin 3.1.1 Existing Water Projects in the Yuba River Basin Sixteen existing water projects occur in the Yuba River Basin. Eight of the water projects are licensed or exempt from licensing by FERC. Together, these eight projects have a combined FERC-authorized capacity of 782.1 MW, of which the Narrows Hydroelectric Project has approximately 1.5 percent of the total capacity. The remaining eight non-FERC-licensed projects do not contain generating facilities. Each of these water projects is described briefly below. 3.1.1.1 Narrows Hydroelectric Project The existing Narrows Hydroelectric Project is described in detail in Section 2 of this PAD. 3.1.1.2 Upstream of the Narrows Hydroelectric Project 3.1.1.2.1 South Feather Power Project The 117.5-MW South Feather Power Project, FERC Project No. 2088, is a water supply/power project constructed in the late 1950s/early 1960s and is owned and operated by the South Feather Water and Power Agency (SFWPA). None of the project facilities or features is located in the Yuba River watershed except for the Slate Creek Diversion Dam, which is located on a tributary to the North Yuba River.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Calfornia Water Districts & Water Supply Sources
    WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? Quincy Corning k F k N F , M R , r R e er th th a a Magalia e Fe F FEATHER RIVER NORTH FORK Shasta Lake STATE WATER PROJECT Chico Orland Paradise k F S , FEATHER RIVER MIDDLE FORK R r STATE WATER PROJECT e Sacramento River th a e F Tehama-Colusa Canal Durham Folsom Lake LAKE OROVILLE American River N Yuba R STATE WATER PROJECT San Joaquin R. Contra Costa Canal JACKSON MEADOW RES. New Melones Lake LAKE PILLSBURY Yuba Co. W.A. Marin M.W.D. Willows Old River Stanislaus R North Marin W.D. Oroville Sonoma Co. W.A. NEW BULLARDS BAR RES. Ukiah P.U. Yuba Co. W.A. Madera Canal Delta-Mendota Canal Millerton Lake Fort Bragg Palermo YUBA CO. W.A Kern River Yuba River San Luis Reservoir Jackson Meadows and Willits New Bullards Bar Reservoirs LAKE SPAULDING k Placer Co. W.A. F MIDDLE FORK YUBA RIVER TRUCKEE-DONNER P.U.D E Gridley Nevada I.D. , Nevada I.D. Groundwater Friant-Kern Canal R n ia ss u R Central Valley R ba Project Yu Nevada City LAKE MENDOCINO FEATHER RIVER BEAR RIVER Marin M.W.D. TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL STATE WATER PROJECT YUBA RIVER Nevada I.D. Fk The Central Valley Project has been founded by the U.S. Bureau of North Marin W.D. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT , N Yuba Co. W.A. Grass Valley n R Reclamation in 1935 to manage the water of the Sacramento and Sonoma Co. W.A. ica mer Ukiah P.U.
    [Show full text]
  • Traditions of Sucker Exploitation in the Pit River System: an Ajumawi Example
    UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Title Traditions of Sucker Exploitation in the Pit River System: An Ajumawi Example Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8k53r4nn Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 12(1) ISSN 0191-3557 Author Evans, Nancy H Publication Date 1990-07-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 48-59 (1990). Traditions of Sucker Exploitation in the Pit River System: An Ajumawi Example NANCY H. EVANS, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, P. O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296. X HE avowed significance of riverine-focused AJumawf cultural adaptations in northeastern California Territory ----\ notwithstanding, little is understood regarding the use of specific fish species, the variability Terrllory in harvest strategies, or the relative dietary Y Redd ... V-^ values of the resources. Recent ethnographic o research on traditional sucker fishing practices 0 100 mi. among the Ajumawi division of the Pit River Indians provides a specific illustration of a -J. I, ° 100 km 1 significant resource used in prehistoric times 'O V • Sac/amenlo ^ • and continuing through historical accommoda­ tion to the middle of the twentieth century. The perpetuation of sucker use survives to the I \ present and is attributed in part to historical Fig. 1. Pit River Indian territory. residence patterns and continuous availability, but also to the dietary significance of this tributary to the Pit River. Ajumawi foraging traditional resource. territory (sensu Binford 1980) extended well to the north across the vast lava fields (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • September 14, 2012 File No. 11002A Electronically Filed Honorable
    September 14, 2012 File No. 11002A Electronically Filed Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 SUBJECT: Drum-Spaulding Project, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Project No. 2310- 193 Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project, Nevada Irrigation District, Project No. 2266-102 REPLY COMMENTS of Placer County Water Agency on the California Department of Fish and Game’s Federal Power Act § 10(j) Recommendations Dear Secretary Bose: Pursuant to the Commission’s January 19, 2012 Notice Soliciting Motions to Intervene, Protests, Comments, and Recommendations, and the Commission’s February 29, 2012 Notice extending time to file motions to intervene and comments, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) submits comments on the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) § 10(j) Recommendations for Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Drum-Spaulding Project (FERC No. 2310)1 and Nevada Irrigation District’s (NID) Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2266)2 filed on July 30, 2012. PCWA’s interest in the aforementioned projects and background information are 1 Response to Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis FEDERAL POWER ACT SECTION 10(j) and 10(a) RECOMMENDATIONS Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 2310-193) (Jul 30, 2012). eLibrary No. 20120730-5181. 2 Response to Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis FEDERAL POWER ACT SECTION 10(j) and 10(a) RECOMMENDATIONS Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 2266-102) (Jul 30, 2012). eLibrary No. 20120730-5174. September 14, 2012 Page 2 explained in detail in its letters of intervention, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) on July 30, 20123.
    [Show full text]