DOCSLIB.ORG

SPATIAL and TEMPORAL PATTERNING of OBSIDIAN MATERIALS in the GEYSERS REGION David A. Fredrickson

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SPATIAL and TEMPORAL PATTERNING of OBSIDIAN MATERIALS in the GEYSERS REGION David A. Fredrickson SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL PATTERNING OF OBSIDIAN MATERIALS IN THE GEYSERS REGION David A. Fredrickson LTRODUCTION square miles in the Mayacmas Mountains within TIhis paper focuses upon the archaeology of the northeastern Sonoma and adjoining portions ofLake geothermal region of northeastern Sonoma and adjoin- and Mendocino counties (Map 1). The approximate ing portions of Lake and Mendocino counties, Califor- center of the area is about 75 air miles north of San nia, referred to here as the Geysers region, and draws Francisco, with Clear Lake located an additional 15 from information and materials obtained over a period miles to the north. The study area trends roughly 20 of 14 years during more than 100 separate archaeologi- miles in a northwesterly direction, with its widest cal field investigations implemented as a result of portion of about 12 miles trending northeasterly environmental protection regulations that helped guide through a central point formed at thejoined corners of the development of geothermal resources in the region the three counties. The regions is comprised for the (see Fredrickson 1985). While field work was an most part of the Mayacmas uplands, contrasting with activity of cultural resource management, the integra- the surrounding lowlands ofKelsey and Putah creeks, tive and synthetic work is an academic endeavor (cf. and the Russian River. Terrain is usually rugged, Lipe 1974). The present study further illustrates the lacking broad valleys, with numerous slopes greater contributions that small, often ephemeral, archaeologi- than 60 percent. Although slopes often rise steeply cal sites (in this example, ones located in a hinterland from stream bottoms, occasional narrow valleys and locality) can provide to the understanding of a region's low rolling hills offer more gentle terrain. prehistory (see Whalen 1986; Glassow 1985). Obsidian For purposes of the present work, the study area sourcing and hydration studies offer an indispensible has been straified with respect to major stream key to such understanding when employed not only to drainages. To the north, wholly within Lake County, obtain temporal control but also to gain estimates of are the drainages of High Valley and Kelsey creeks, interrelatedness, or relative social distance, between together referred to as the Kelsey Creek locality; in the adjacent localities (Kay 1975; Wilmsen 1973). central area totally in Sonoma County are Squaw Creek and the lower portion ofBig Sulphur Creek, whose THE STUDY AREA drainages are referred to here as the Squaw Creek locality; to the south, also totally in Sonoma County, is Although the geothermal resource area within the upper portion of Big Sulphur Creek, referred to as which the Geysers region is located is much larger, the the Big Sulphur Creek locality; to the west, in Lake area under study here consists ofabout 100 contiguous County, is Putah Creek, whose lands are referred to as 96 Conftrbutions ofthe Archaeological Research Faciliy Number 48, December 1989 MAP 1 MAP OF GEOTHERMAL STUDY AREA SHOWING MAJOR DRAINAGES AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Boggs 4 Lake Miles 0 .5 1 2 3 I I I 1 Patterning ofObsidian in the Geysers Region 97 the Putah Creek locality. subsurface investigations, the actual numbers for each The region is marked by a complex floral mosaic, category are subject to change as subsurface data consisting of various combinations of chaparral, become available. cypress forest, grassland, oak woodland, Douglas fir- It was recognized during initial work in the oak woodland, and yellow pine forest (Simons 1985). geothermal region that obsidian flakes occurred at Although all these vegetation communities are present virtually all of the identified archaeological sites. within each of the four localities, different localities are Indeed, a significant majority of sites was marked by dominated by different plant associations, a circum- obsidian flakes alone, with even bifacially worked tools stance that affects the relative frequency of different apparently absent (Fredrickson 1974: 3ff.). Limited site types. Chparl and cypress forest associations subsurface investigation did little to change this dominate much of the Kelsey Creek locality, while perception (Fredrickson 1985: 29). Because geother- grassland and oak woodland cover a great deal of the mal development is land intensive, it was also recog- Squaw Creek locality. Flake scatters, assumed to be nized that impacts to archaeological resources, both associated with hunting, dominate Kelsey Creek, while anticipated and locationally unanticipated, could occur sites with more extensive cultural deposits, assumed to as a result of implementation of any one of the many be indicative of upland camps, are most common at different projects under development (Fredrickson Squaw Creek. In short, the study area forms a rugged 1974: 16ff.). Although each power plant utilizes only a upland backcountry, usually dominated by chaparral few acres, it draws upon steam from wells contained and yellow pine forest, as contrasted with the more within a leasehold averaging about 800 to 1000 acres in gentle and generous terrain which surrounds the area. size. Considering that about 30 power plants are now As already mentioned, the study area also contains operating, under construction, or in the permitting geothermal resources, the development of which has stages, a significantly large ground surface area is prompted the archaeological work reported here. affected. Within each leasehold are about 10 to 15 Territories of four ethnographic Native American steam wells required to furnish steam to operate the communities converge within the region, with Geysers power plant, a complex network of pipelines to trans- Rock at the head of Squaw Creek forming the approxi- port the steam, support roads, and power transmission mate point of convergence. An Eastern Pomo commu- lines. Add to this service centers, disposal areas, and nity with its major villages along the lower reaches of other geothermal features, and the potential threat to Kelsey Creek controlled the Kelsey Creek locality. A archaeological resources through land disturbance Southern Pomo community with its major village activities becomes acute. located on the Russian River near Cloverdale controlled In view of these circumstances, an explicit plan the Squaw Creek portion. The upper Big Sulphur Creek that focused upon analysis ofarchaeological obsidian portion was controlled by a Western Wappo community was initiated in 1973 to complement the archaeological whose major village is believed to have been at the surveys required by law (Fredrickson 1974: 29). Geysers proper. The Putah Creek locality was con- Although preliminary analyses of obsidian data have trolled by the community at Middletown, consisting of been reported previously (e.g., Eisenman and Fre- either Lake Miwok or Northern Wappo, or both drickson 1980; Jackson 1974), a more thorough (Kroeber 1932: 366ff.; Merriam 1955: 43ff.). analysis was made possible during the preparation of an archaeological management plan for the geothermal THE DATA BASE area by Sonoma State University's Anthropological Studies center (Fredrickson 1985) under contract to the Systematic and intensive archaeological survey U.S. Bureau of Land Management (see acknowledge- associated with geothermal resources development ments). began in 1973 (e.g., Fredrickson 1973; Peak 1973). Since then, numerous surveys have generated more than ASSUMPTIONS 200 reports, letters, and environmental documents pertaining to archaeological resources. As a result of Our studies have attempted to control for two this work, more than 100 contiguous square miles have major variables, space and time. The spatial dimension been surveyed and more than 340 prehistoric archaeo- has been controlled as described above through logical sites have been recorded. Of these, about 63 stratifying by major drainage. The temporal dimension percent are flake scatters while about 37 percent are has been controlled, though only to a limited extent believed to have subsurface deposits. Because these because of cost constraints, through source-specific evaluations are based primarily upon observable surface obsidian hydration studies. Because no satisfactory attributes and have only occasionally been tested by hydration rates have been developed for the obsidian 98 Contributions ofthe Archaeological Research Facility Number 48, December 1989 sources under consideration, we have resisted the ties are more or less equally distributed within two temptation to convert obsidian hydration readings into communities, then fall-off is low by definition and calendric dates. However, at this point in the research, interrelatedness is assumed to be high. source-specific hydration data reported in microns Several simple assumptions, none of which is provide a satisfactory framework for relative dating. necessarily true, have been made in drawing inferences The spatial stratification of the study area by major from the distributional data. First, the principle of least drainages (rather tanm vegetation or geomorphology) is effort is assumed. For example Borax Lake obsidian is not an arbitrary procedure. Territorial boundaries in assumed to have entered the region from the northeast, ethnographic Califomia were frequently at divides where its parent source is located, rather than by a more between watersheds. This was certainly the case within round about route from the south. Second, it is assumed the present study area. To place this geomorphological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Springs of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIBECTOB WATER- SUPPLY PAPER 338 SPRINGS OF CALIFORNIA BY GEKALD A. WARING WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Page. lntroduction by W. C. Mendenhall ... .. ................................... 5 Physical features of California ...... ....... .. .. ... .. ....... .............. 7 Natural divisions ................... ... .. ........................... 7 Coast Ranges ..................................... ....•.......... _._._ 7 11 ~~:~~::!:: :~~e:_-_-_·.-.·.·: ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::: 12 Sierra Nevada .................... .................................... 12 Southeastern desert ......................... ............. .. ..... ... 13 Faults ..... ....... ... ................ ·.. : ..... ................ ..... 14 Natural waters ................................ _.......................... 15 Use of terms "mineral water" and ''pure water" ............... : .·...... 15 ,,uneral analysis of water ................................ .. ... ........ 15 Source and amount of substances in water ................. ............. 17 Degree of concentration of natural waters ........................ ..· .... 21 Properties of mineral waters . ................... ...... _. _.. .. _... _....• 22 Temperature of natural waters ... : ....................... _.. _..... .... : . 24 Classification of mineral waters ............ .......... .. .. _. .. _......... _ 25 Therapeutic value of waters .................................... ... ... 26 Analyses
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County Rainfall Map (1.81MB)
    128 OAT VALLEY CREEK ALDER CREEK Mendocino County CREEK BIG SULPHUR CREEK CLOVERDALE 40 Cloverdale 29 60 CREEK OSSER CREEK PORTERFIELD SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY 45 40 LITTLE SULPHUR CREEK BUCKEYE CREEK 40 Lake County FLAT RIDGE CREEK 45 GUALALA RIVER 50 55 60 70 GRASSHOPPER CREEK 55 Sea Ranch 60 65 75 70 RANCHERIA CREEK LITTLE CREEK 55 50 GILL CREEK Annapolis 4 A SAUSAL CREEK 55 45 Lake STRAWBERRY CREEK Sonoma MILLER CREEK BURNS CREEK 50 TOMBS CREEK 45 65 WHEATFIELD Geyserville INGALLS CREEK FORK GUALALA-SALMON GUALALA-SALMON WOOD CREEK 1 GEORGE YOUNG CREEK BOYD CREEK MILL STREAM SOUTH FORK GUALALA BEAR CREEK FULLER CREEK COON CREEK 40 LITTLE BRIGGS CREEK RIVER 50 GIRD CREEK BRIGGS CREEK 7 A MAACAMA CREEK Jimtown WINE CREEK 6 A KELLOGG CREEK GRAIN CREEK HOUSE CREEK 60 CEDAR CREEK INDIANCREEK LANCASTER CREEK DANFIELD CREEK FALL CREEK OWL CREEK 40 Stewarts Point HOOT WOODS CREEK CRANE CREEK HAUPT CREEK YELLOWJACKET CREEK FOOTE CREEK REDWOOD CREEK GUALALA RIVER WALLACE CREEK 60 128 Lake JIM CREEK Berryessa ANGEL CREEK Healdsburg RUSSIAN RIVER SPROULE CREEK MILL CREEK DEVIL CREEK AUSTIN CREEK RUSSIAN RIVER SLOUGHWEST MARTIN CREEK BIG AUSTIN CREEK GILLIAM CREEK THOMPSON CREEK PALMER CREEK FELTA CREEK FRANZ CREEK BLUE JAY CREEK MCKENZIE CREEK BARNES CREEK BIG OAT CREEK Windsor MARK WEST CREEK COVE 75 WARD CREEK POOL CREEK PORTER CREEKMILL CREEK Fort Ross 80 HUMBUG CREEK TIMBER Cazadero STAR FIFE CREEK CREEK 55 PRUITT 45 HOBSON CREEK CREEK 50 NEAL CREEK 1 A 60 Hacienda REDWOOD CREEK RUSSIAN WIKIUP KIDD CREEK Guerneville CREEK VAN BUREN CREEK 101 RINCON CREEK RIVER 70 35 WEEKS CREEK 50 FULTON CREEK 65 BRUSH CREEK DUCKER CREEK GREEN COFFEYCREEK PINER CREEK 5 A VALLEY Forestville 60 CREEK CREEK RUSSELL BRUSH CREEK LAGUNA 55 Monte Rio CREEK AUSTIN BEAR CREEK RIVER CREEK GREEN FORESTVILLECREEK PAULIN CREEK DUTCH PINER CREEK Santa Rosa DE PETERSONCREEKFORESTVIEW SANTA ROSA CREEK OAKMONT STEELE VALLEY WENDELL CREEK CREEK BILL SANTA CREEK 45 SONOMA CREEK RUSSIAN GRUB CREEK SPRING CREEK LAWNDALECREEK 40 Napa County STATE HWY 116 COLLEGE CREEK CREEK HOOD MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Impacts on Geyser Basins
    volume 17 • number 1 • 2009 Human Impacts on Geyser Basins The “Crystal” Salamanders of Yellowstone Presence of White-tailed Jackrabbits Nature Notes: Wolves and Tigers Geyser Basins with no Documented Impacts Valley of Geysers, Umnak (Russia) Island Geyser Basins Impacted by Energy Development Geyser Basins Impacted by Tourism Iceland Iceland Beowawe, ~61 ~27 Nevada ~30 0 Yellowstone ~220 Steamboat Springs, Nevada ~21 0 ~55 El Tatio, Chile North Island, New Zealand North Island, New Zealand Geysers existing in 1950 Geyser basins with documented negative effects of tourism Geysers remaining after geothermal energy development Impacts to geyser basins from human activities. At least half of the major geyser basins of the world have been altered by geothermal energy development or tourism. Courtesy of Steingisser, 2008. Yellowstone in a Global Context N THIS ISSUE of Yellowstone Science, Alethea Steingis- claimed they had been extirpated from the park. As they have ser and Andrew Marcus in “Human Impacts on Geyser since the park’s establishment, jackrabbits continue to persist IBasins” document the global distribution of geysers, their in the park in a small range characterized by arid, lower eleva- destruction at the hands of humans, and the tremendous tion sagebrush-grassland habitats. With so many species in the importance of Yellowstone National Park in preserving these world on the edge of survival, the confirmation of the jackrab- rare and ephemeral features. We hope this article will promote bit’s persistence is welcome. further documentation, research, and protection efforts for The Nature Note continues to consider Yellowstone with geyser basins around the world. Documentation of their exis- a broader perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1249
    ��� � Geothermal Energy—Clean Power From the Earth’s Heat Circular 1249 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Energy—Clean Power From the Earth’s Heat By Wendell A. Duffield and John H. Sass C1249 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey ii iii U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2003 Available from U.S. Geological Survey Information Services� Box 25286, Denver Federal Center� Denver, CO 80225� This report and any updates to it are available at� http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/circular/c1249/� Additional USGS publications can be found at� http://geology.usgs.gov/products.html� For more information about the USGS and its products;� Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS� World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/� Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply� endorsement of the U.S. Government.� Although this report is in the public domain, it contains copyrighted materials that are noted in the text. Permission� to reproduce those items must be secured from the individual copyright owners.� Published in the Western Region, Menlo Park, California� Manuscript approved for publication March 20, 2003� Text and illustrations edited by James W. Hendley II and Carolyn Donlin� Cataloging-in-publication data are on file with the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/). Cover—Coso geothermal plant, Navy One, at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in southern California (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Characterization of the Northwest Geysers, California
    PROCEEDINGS, 44th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 11-13, 2019 SGP-TR-214 Geophysical Characterization of the heat source in the Northwest Geysers, California Jared R. Peacock1, Margaret T. Mangan1, Mark Walters2, Craig Hartline2, Jonathan Glen1, Tait Earney1, William Schermerhorn1 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park, CA, 2Calpine Corporation, 10350 Socrates Mine Road, Middletown, CA 95461 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Keywords: The Geysers, magnetotellurics, resistivity, gravity, three-dimensional modeling, EGS, HDR ABSTRACT The Geysers, in northern California, is the largest energy producing geothermal field in the world. Looking to expand capacity, the operator Calpine Corporation developed an anomalously hot (~400 °C at 2.5 km depth) part of the field in the northwest Geysers, including testing of an enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Though the area is anomalously hot, geophysical methods have failed to adequately image any inferred magmatic heat source. Gravity measurements were collected and jointly modeled with existing magnetic data along a two-dimensional profile aligned with an existing geologic cross-section. The key feature of the potential field model is a low-density, low-susceptibility body below the EGS at 5 km depth. Magnetotelluric (MT) measurements were collected around the northwest Geysers and modeled in three-dimensions to characterize subsurface resistivity structure. The resistivity model images an extension of a Quaternary granitic pluton locally known as “the felsite” under the EGS project and a possible zone of partial melt (<10%) below 7 km in the northwestern part of the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study Mammoth Pacific Power
    IV. CASE STUDY: MAMMOTH PACIFIC POWER PLANT View of Mammoth Pacific II The following section offers a firsthand account of the development process for a geothermal power plant. It reveals what took place behind the scenes to bring a power plant online near a small, California community, as indicated by the people who were involved in that process,.both within and outside the developing company. This case study documents one plant’s transformation from one of the most hotly contested to one of the most locally and internationally appreciated power plants in the United States. A. Setting Travel guides advertise Mono County, California, as .a land of fire and ice. with .extraordinary features [that] attest to the region’s active geologic past. The largest city within Mono County, the Town of Mammoth Lakes, is a recreation area, where regular activities include skiing, mountain climbing, hiking, fishing, and is a land that one local described as Los Angeles. playground. At the time the Mammoth Pacific power plants were developed near the Town of Mammoth Lakes, the type of geothermal technology used was relatively new and unexplored. The effects of such a plant, especially upon such a prime recreation area prized for its natural beauty, were uncertain. B. Plans for Development The first unit at the Mammoth Pacific Complex, the 10-MW MP-I power plant that came online in 1984, was relatively unknown by constituents of Mono County. But the 1990 expansion, which added two 15 MW units to the Mammoth Pacific Complex, bringing the total capacity at the complex to 40 MW, met substantial public scrutiny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quicksilver Rush 150 Years Ago There Was a World Wide Struggle for a Little Known Commodity Known As Quicksilver
    The Quicksilver Rush 150 years ago there was a world wide struggle for a little known commodity known as Quicksilver. This story ends at the last Quicksilver mine (still operating in the 1970’s) right here in West County at a hamlet called Mercury. Quicksilver The word ‘quicksilver’ sounds like another shortcut to a flimflam…like the term ‘fools gold’. But, quicksilver does have value, it is the slang name for ‘Mercury’. You may also think “Big deal, old fashioned thermometers, how much money is in that?”. Back in the olden golden days, prospecting, mining, and speculation in quicksilver was big buckeroos. The Bay Area was the capital of quicksilver (at just the right time), and Sonoma County had a flurry of boomtowns. Refining Rocks into Gold When gold miners realized they could no longer pick up nuggets in the stream and the excitement of the '49er migration faded, gold mining became just another extraction industry. Hydraulic mining engineers knew that the way to recover gold (and silver) from low-grade ore was by a process called There was only one problem, there amalgamation, the was no Mercury in California. All treatment of ground-up the processed Mercury was in ore with mercury to Europe, it would have been too extract gold. expensive to transport a million tons of Mercury around the world to the California gold fields. The Richest Mine In 1845 Captain Andres Castillero, a Mexican soldier, diplomat and scholar, was sent to Alta California. While exploring south of Yerba Buena he recognizing a reddish color cliff as probably being cinnabar, he proceeded to test the ore and discovered that it was indeed cinnabar.
    [Show full text]
  • June 9, 2017 Project No.: 592-10-16-05 SENT VIA: EMAIL TO: Harish Bagha, Grant Manager State Water Board Division of Financial Assistance
    MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 2017 Project No.: 592-10-16-05 SENT VIA: EMAIL TO: Harish Bagha, Grant Manager State Water Board Division of Financial Assistance Kari Holzgang, Program Analyst State Water Board Division of Financial Assistance FROM: Andy Rodgers, Executive Director, Russian River Watershed Association Jarod Thiele, Grant Contact, City of Ukiah REVIEWED BY: Elizabeth Drayer, PE, RCE #46872 SUBJECT: Data Collection and Data Gap Analysis The Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA) has prepared this annotated list of information and data collected and reviewed in support of the Russian River Storm Water Resource Plan (SWRP). A substantial volume of information is available for the Russian River watershed from a variety of sources. This information comes in the form of reports, plans, permits and geographical information system (GIS) data. DATA COLLECTED The status of information and data collected and reviewed is summarized in three tables below. The reviewed information and data (Tables 1 and 2) are tabulated and further organized by which SWRP element is addressed. Table 3 summarizes known information and data still needing to be collected and the expected source of the data. The Russian River Watershed Association complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Please contact Andy Rodgers, Executive Director, at 707-508-3670 with any questions. Russian River Watershed Association Memorandum, June 9, 2017 Page 2 Table 1. Documents Reviewed Year Title Published
    [Show full text]
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments
    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
    [Show full text]
  • September 16, 1973 BIG SULPHUR CREEK SONOMA Entire Mouth
    transcribed for KRIS September 16, 1973 BIG SULPHUR CREEK SONOMA Entire Mouth Headwaters 20 miles Russian River 11 N 10 W 7 None Russian Personal Observations EXTENT OF OBSERVATION: Big Sulphur Creek was checked at several points on August 8 by B. Finlayson. The creek was completely surveyed by foot and from car from its confluence with the Russian River to its headwaters by B. Finlayson and J. Nelson on September 4, 5, 7 and 13, 1973. LOCATION: Big Sulphur Creek enters the Russian River two miles north of Cloverdale, California. The creek flows due west from its headwaters near Middletown, California. RELATION TO OTHER WATERS: Big Sulphur Creek contributes winter and summer flows to the Russian River System, provides passage for both upstream and downstream migration of anadromous salmonids to the creeks tributaries. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Watershed and Immediate Drainage System— Big Sulphur Creek and its tributaries drain a basin of approximately 60 square miles, most of which is oak-grassland. The creek flows through a narrow and steep canyon, occasionally opening into shallow valleys. The creek is typified by steep walls (750 feet high carved out of outcroppings of bedrock) and bordered by oak, alder, madrone and some pine. Riparian streamside cover is limited along the entire stream. Altitude— 400 feet at confluence with Russian River: 2400 feet at headwaters. Gradient— 200 feet/mile overall. Width— Average: eight feet; range: three to 30 feet. Depth— One foot average; three inches to six feet range. Flow— Range from 1.9 c.f.s. near mouth to 0.3 c.f.s.
    [Show full text]