DOCSLIB.ORG

Chamberlain Tidewater Goby 2006.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chamberlain Tidewater Goby 2006.Pdf U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2006-04 Environmental Variables of Northern California Lagoons and Estuaries and the Distribution of Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Charles D. Chamberlain U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 882-7201 2006 Funding for this study was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Western Fisheries Research Center in Seattle through their Dixon, California Field Station and California Cooperative Fishery Unit at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Additional funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Program. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal government. Key words: estuarine habitat, northern California, tidewater goby The correct citation for this report is: Chamberlain, C.D. 2006. Environmental variables of northern California lagoons and estuaries and the distribution of tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata Fisheries Technical Report Number TR 2006-04, Arcata, California. ii Table of Contents page List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures.................................................................................................................... iv List of Appendices ..............................................................................................................v Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 4 Water body descriptions ................................................................................................. 6 Methods............................................................................................................................... 9 Site selection ................................................................................................................... 9 Water Quality Measurement......................................................................................... 10 Physical Habitat Classification ..................................................................................... 10 Fish Collection.............................................................................................................. 12 Tidal connectivity ......................................................................................................... 13 Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 13 1997 site re-visits .......................................................................................................... 14 Results............................................................................................................................... 14 Water Quality................................................................................................................ 15 Physical Habitat ............................................................................................................ 19 Compare 1996 to 1997.................................................................................................. 20 Tidal connectivity ......................................................................................................... 28 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 28 Habitat assessment........................................................................................................ 33 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... 34 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 34 Personal Communications ................................................................................................ 36 Appendices........................................................................................................................ 38 iii List of Tables page Table 1. A sample of the range of reported preference and range of tolerance or observation exhibited by tidewater goby for various environmental attributes.......... 3 Table 2. Substrate types used in visual classification.................................................... 11 Table 3. Vegetation types used in visual classification................................................. 12 Table 4. Locations where tidewater goby were and were not detected in 1996............ 15 Table 5. Results of generalized linear modeling and analysis of covariance on relationship of water quality parameters to log-transformed tidewater goby density for all water bodies where the species was detected by seining in 1996...... 19 Table 6. Density of tidewater goby (number/m of seine set length) in samples collected 1997. .......................................................................................................... 24 Table 7. Surface salinity measurements collected in 1997............................................ 26 Table 8. Dissolved oxygen measurements collected near water’s surface in 1997....... 27 Table 9 Tidal connectivity and tidewater goby presence in 1996................................. 28 List of Figures page Figure 1. Range of survey conducted in 1996................................................................. 5 Figure 2. Tidewater goby density for 1996 seine samples transformed by Log10 (density + 1) and plotted against surface salinity...................................................... 17 Figure 3. Tidewater goby density for 1996 seine samples transformed by Log10 (density + 1) and plotted against bottom salinity...................................................... 18 Figure 4. Lake Earl salinity as measured near the surface for all visits 1996 and 1997; sample sites positive and negative for tidewater goby detection are presented side-by-side............................................................................................... 21 Figure 5. Stone Lagoon salinity as measured near the surface for all visits 1996 and 1997; sample sites positive and negative for tidewater goby detection are presented side-by-side............................................................................................... 22 Figure 6. Big Lagoon salinity as measured near the surface for all visits 1996 and 1997; sample sites positive and negative for tidewater goby detection are presented side-by-side............................................................................................... 22 Figure 7. Estero Americano salinity as measured near the surface for all visits 1996 and 1997; sample sites positive and negative for tidewater goby detection are presented side-by-side. ........................................................................................ 23 Figure 8 Humboldt Bay “perched” habitats found to harbor tidewater goby................ 33 iv List of Appendices Page Appendix A. Box plots of water quality parameters measured at all locations sampled for tidewater goby in 1996.......................................................................... 38 v Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2006-04 Environmental variables of northern California lagoons and estuaries and the distribution of tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Charles D. Chamberlain U. F. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road; Arcata, California [email protected] Abstract. Northern California lagoon and estuary habitats were sampled in summer and early fall 1996 and 1997 to describe the relation of microhabitat variables to the distribution of tidewater goby. Twenty of the then twenty- one historically known locations for the species north of San Francisco Bay were sampled. Presence of tidewater goby was re-confirmed at 12 of the 20 sites visited. Little correlation was found between presence or absence of tidewater goby and point measurements of salinity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH vegetation and substrate). Relatively high catch rates of tidewater gobies occurred at some sites characterized as having environmental conditions outside the range of those reported as optimal in the literature. For example, this study found tidewater goby in water with dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 1 mg/l at Rodeo Lagoon; salinities less than 5 ppt at Lake Earl, Davis Lake, and Salmon Creek; and hyper-saline water as high as 37.9 ppt in the upper portion of Estero Americano. Infrequent but occasional connectivity to tidal fluctuation appeared to increase the likelihood of encountering tidewater goby, regardless of water quality and habitat conditions encountered in these predominantly tidally- isolated waters. This suggests that descriptive measures of physical characteristics like substrate and vegetation and point measurements of water quality provide limited insight to a water body’s suitability for tidewater goby. Rather than indicate inherent habitat preferences for the species, the range of physical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Northern California Coast Northern Focus Area
    14.1 Description of Area 14.1.1 The Land The Northern California Coast - Northern Focus Area is composed of coastal Del Norte and Humboldt counties. The boundary extends eastward from the Pacific coast to the top of the first inland mountain range, and encompasses many of the region's existing and former wetlands. The focus area also includes a few important riparian and floodplain areas adjacent to major coastally draining rivers (Figure 13). In this northernmost California County, the coastline tends to be composed of rocky cliffs and high bluffs which rise steeply into the coastal mountain ranges with their deeply cut 14.0 canyons. Two major rivers drain the interior mountain ranges and empty into the Pacific Ocean within the boundary of Del Norte County: the Smith River, which has its origins in north- eastern Del Norte County and southern Oregon, and the Klamath River with headwaters much farther to the NORTHERN north and east in south central Oregon. Humboldt County, to the south, includes portions of CALIFORNIA the California Coast Range and the southern Klamath Mountains. The most extensive coastal wetlands are associated with floodplains in the lower Eel River COAST─ Valley and the Humboldt Bay area. Other significant wetland habitats include Mad River Estuary, Little River Valley, Redwood Creek Estuary, Big Lagoon, NORTHERN Stone Lagoon, and Freshwater Lagoon. Major rivers and streams draining the mountain ranges of Humboldt County include the Eel River, Van Duzen FOCUS AREA River, Mad River, Trinity River, Klamath River, Mattole River, Bear River, and Redwood Creek. Like the Klamath River, the Trinity and Eel rivers have large drainage basins within the Coast Range and the Klamath Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Big River Basin Assessment November 2006
    Coastal Watershed Planning Assessment Program Big River Basin Assessment November 2006 State of California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger California Resources Agency California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary, Mike Chrisman Secretary, Alan Lloyd North Coast Watershed Assessment Program Participants Contributing Agencies and Departments Department of Fish and Game State Water Resources Control Board Director, Loris “Ryan” Broddrick Chair, Art Baggett Department of Forestry and Fire Protection North Coast Regional Water Director, Dale Gildert Quality Control Board Executive Officer, Catherine Kuhlman Department of Water Resources Department of Conservation Director, Lester A. Snow Interim Director, Debbie Sareeram Big River Assessment Team Assessment Manager Scott Downie California Department of Fish and Game Fisheries: Steve Cannata California Department of Fish and Game Beatrijs deWaard Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Cynthia LeDoux-Bloom California Department of Fish and Game Forestry and Land Use: Rob Rutland California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Water Quality: Elmer Dudik North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Geology: Karin W. Fresnel Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Fluvial Geomorphology: Dawn McGuire Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Currently Department of Fish and Game Geographic Information System, Data Management, Ecological Management Decision System (EMDS) Vikki Avara-Snider – GIS & Document Production Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    [Show full text]
  • Tertiary Intrusive Rocks
    Geomorphic Processes and Aquatic Habitat in the Redwood Creek Basin, Northwestern California K.M. NOLAN, H.M. KELSEY, and D.C. MARRON, Editors U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1454 This volume is published as chapters A through V. These chapters are not available separately. Chapter titles are listed in the volume table of contents U N IT ED STATES G O V ERN M EN T PR IN T ING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Geomorphic processes and aquatic habitat in the Redwood Creek Basin, northwestern California. (U.S. Geological Survey professional paper ; 1454) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.16:1454 1. Geomorphology—California—Redwood Creek Watershed. 2. Slopes (Physical geography)—California—Redwood Creek Watershed. 3. Redwood Creek (Calif.)—Channel. 4. Stream ecology—California—Redwood Creek Watershed. I. Nolan, K.M. (Kenneth Michael), 1949- . II. Kelsey, H.M. III. Marron, D.C. IV. Series: Geological Survey professional paper ; 1454. GB565.C2G46 1990 551.4'09794 86-600236 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225 Geology of the Redwood Creek Basin, Humboldt County, California By SUSAN M. CASHMAN, HARVEY M. KELSEY, and DEBORAH R. HARDEN GEOMORPHIC PROCESSES AND AQUATIC HABITAT IN THE REDWOOD CREEK BASIN, NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1454-B CONTENTS Page Abstract....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Earl and Smith River Delta
    Natural resources of Lake Earl and Smith River Delta Item Type monograph Authors Monroe, Gary M.; Mapes, Bobby J.; McLaughlin, Patrick L.; Browning, Bruce M.; Rogers, David W.; Warner, Ronald W.; Speth, John W. Publisher California Department of Fish and Game Download date 10/10/2021 16:25:36 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/18452 State of California DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GM NATURAL RESOURCES of LAKE EARL and the SMITH RIVER DELTA Prepared by Gary M. Monroe, Associate Wildlife Manager Bobby J. Mapes, Associate Wildlife Biologist and Patrick L. McLaughlin, Assistant Wildlife Manager Assisted by Bruce M.t Browning, Associate Wildlife Biologist David W. Rogers, Assistant Fisheries Biologist Ronald W. Warner, Associate Marine Biologist and John W. Speth, Coastal Wetlands Program Coordinator March, 1975 COASTAL WETLAND SERIES - #10 ACKNOWUDGMENTS This report was prepared by the personnel of the Department's Region 1 field office in Eureka and staff members of the Wildlife Management Branch in Sacramento. Those who were particularly helpful in assist- ing with various stages of the field work include Don LaFaunce, Forest Reynolds, William Peters, Len Rudder, Ed Miller and Al Clinton. Special acknowledgment is given to Stanley J. Thompson, Wildlife Management Supervisor, Redding, for supervision of the preparation of this report. Ruth Hurd typed the final manuscript and the plates were delineated by Kenneth Gonzales and Nanci Dong. Dr. Stanley Harris and Archie Mossman, both from Humboldt State Univer- sity, supplied information used in the preparation of the bird and mammal check lists. This report was prepared under contract with the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission with funds granted by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration; and was supported, in part, by funds made available under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood NP & SP: History Basic Data (Table of Contents)
    Redwood NP & SP: History Basic Data (Table of Contents) Redwood History Basic Data TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER PREFACE FOREWORD ILLUSTRATIONS I. THE INDIANS OF THE REDWOODS A. THE YUROK 1. The Villages 2. Population 3. Customs a. Blood Money b. Ownership of Fishing and Hunting Grounds c. War and Peace d. Ceremonies e. Superstitions 4. Houses and Sweathouses 5. Canoes 6. Food from the Land, Rivers, and Ocean 7. Crook Describes the Indians at the Mouth of the Klamath 8. Government and Wealth B. THE TOLOWA 1. The Villages 2. Relations Between Villages and with Other Tribes 3. Customs, Institutions, and Implements C. THE CHILULA 1. Cultural Background 2. Location of Villages 3. Conflict with the Whites 4. Dwellings and Sweathouses D. COMMENTS and RECOMMENDATIONS II. COASTAL EXPLORATION A. THE CABRILLO-FERRELO EXPEDITION http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/redw/historyt.htm[5/13/2013 2:55:39 PM] Redwood NP & SP: History Basic Data (Table of Contents) B. FRANCIS DRAKE CRUISES the HUMBOLDT COAST C. THE MANILA GALLEONS off the HUMBOLDT COAST D. SEBASTIAN RODRIGUEZ CERMENÕ RECONNOITERS HUMBOLDT COAST E. VOYAGE OF VIZCAÍNO F. HECETA and BODEGA and the EXPEDITION to TRINIDAD HEAD G. FATHER SERRA'S PLANS H. GEORGE VANCOUVER SAILS the PACIFIC I. AMERICAN SHIP CAPTAINS VISIT the AREA 1. Captain William Shaler 2. Captain Jonathan Winship J. THE RUSSIANS off the HUMBOLDT COAST K. THE SCHOONER COLUMBIA in TRINIDAD BAY L. COMMENTS and RECOMMENDATIONS III. THE HINTERLAND IS PENETRATED A. JED SMITH PENETRATES the REDWOODS 1. General Background to Smith's Visit 2. Smith and His Company Cross the Mountains and Descend Trinity 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Lagoons State Park 115336 Highway 101 North Trinidad, CA 95570 (707) 488-2169
    Our Mission The mission of California State Parks is Humboldt to provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological Part of the country’s Lagoons diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities largest lagoon system State Park for high-quality outdoor recreation. supports a rich variety of marsh plants, birds and other animals California State Parks supports equal access. Prior to arrival, visitors with disabilities who while providing need assistance should contact the park at (707) 488-2169. This publication is available ample opportunity in alternate formats by contacting: for recreation. CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 For information call: (800) 777-0369. (916) 653-6995, outside the U.S. 711, TTY relay service www.parks.ca.gov Discover the many states of California.™ SaveTheRedwoods.org/csp Humboldt Lagoons State Park 115336 Highway 101 North Trinidad, CA 95570 (707) 488-2169 © 2011 California State Parks V isitors to Humboldt Lagoons actively pursued cultural and language State Park see part of the largest revitalization, viewing Humboldt Lagoons lagoon system in the United States. State Park as part of their heritage. Lagoons are shallow, enclosed bodies NATURAL HISTORY of water along the coast—separated from the ocean by coastal strands or The Lagoons spits of land. Water flows in and out of Humboldt Lagoons State Park consists of the lagoons when it breaches (breaks four separate areas from south to north: through) these spits. Big Lagoon, Dry Lagoon, Stone Lagoon and The park offers activities that Freshwater Lagoon.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Plan Update 2004
    Pacific Coast Joint Venture Coastal Northern California Component STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE 2004 Big River, Mendocino County Pacific Coast Joint Venture Northern California Component STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE 2004 Prepared by: California Pacific Coast Joint Venture http://www.madriverbio.com/ca-pcjv.html Ron LeValley Coordinator, California PCJV [email protected] Dr. C. John Ralph, Chair California PCJV [email protected] or [email protected] Carey Smith, Joint Venture Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [email protected] Chet Ogan Redwood Region Audubon Society [email protected] Karen Kovacs California Department of Fish & Game [email protected] September 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary................................................................................................................. …iii Chapter 1. Introduction… .................................................................................................. ..…1-1 The North American Waterfowl Management Plan .................................................................... 1-1 Population Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-1 International Administration........................................................................................................ 1-2 Regional Administration.............................................................................................................. 1-2 Habitat Joint Ventures............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Trends of California Wetlands California Assembly Resources Subcommittee on Status and Trends
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Assembly California Documents 1984 Status and Trends of California Wetlands California Assembly Resources Subcommittee on Status and Trends Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_assembly Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation California Assembly Resources Subcommittee on Status and Trends, "Status and Trends of California Wetlands" (1984). California Assembly. Paper 410. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_assembly/410 This Committee Report is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Assembly by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. s Nona iet ]] PRODUCTIOH ., J l..L tra] j <:1 ESA/HADRONF., A dj Ed or' f Frwi romnental Science Associ atE-'8, IDe. No~a o and San Francisco, California PROJECT ~1ANAGER Charles rrPn and Associates A FORWORD • • • • • i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . iii ISSUES AND NEEDS: ADDENDUM • • xvi PART I: THE WETLAND RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA •• 1 Introduction .•.•••••• 1 The Resource . • • . • • . 8 Uses and Abuses of Wetlands 26 PART II: PROGRAMS AND POLICIES 41 Federal Level • • • • . • • • • • • 41 State of California •..• . 52 Local Governments .•..• 62 Private and Local Initiatives 64 PART III: THE REGIONS OF CALIFORNIA WETLANDS • • • • • • 65 Central Valley • • • • • . • • • • • • • .•••••• • • • • 65 San Francisco Bay ••.••••••••••••• • • • • 72 Klamath Lakes Basin and Modoc Plateau ..•••••••••• 78 North and Central Coast 82 South Coast Region 96 Desert Region • • 109 REFERENCES CITED . • 11 5 APPENDICES: A. Wetland Definitions ...•.•••.••••••••• • A-1 B. Characteristic Wetland ant Species •••••••••• • • • • B-1 C.
    [Show full text]
  • WILD PLACES Your
    N e w t o Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park n B . Dogs allowed on leash no more than 6 ft. long in D r campgrounds, day use areas and roads. u r Enjoying Humboldt’s y D Gold Bluffs Beach a K v la is m Dogs allowed on leash no more than 6 ft. long on the beach, o a n t h R in beach campground and along roads. WILD PLACES d R . iv with Dogs are not allowed on trails in Redwood National and State Parks. er Your Dog Information Center ORICK Responsible dog owners help ensure that everyone can enjoy Freshwater Lagoon Beach Humboldt’s wildlife by choosing to keep their dog on a leash, B Stone Lagoon Beach a Redwood l knowing where and when it is appropriate for dogs to be off- d Humboldt Lagoons State Park National H il leash and by cleaning up after their dog. ls Dogs allowed only on park roads on a leash no more than 6 ft. long, with Dry Lagoon Beach and R o the exception of Dry Lagoon Beach, where dogs are allowed on a leash a State d no more than 6 ft. long. Please note that the majority of Big Lagoon Parks Beach is under state jurisdiction and no dogs are allowed. Big Lagoon Spit GUIDE KEY Big Lagoon County Park Dogs are allowed under voice control on The following color symbols are intended to be used as a Agate Beach North WEITCHPEC Agate Beach South county property. County property only extends general guide to understanding dog use regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
    California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Regional Profile of the North Coast Study Region (California-Oregon Border to Alder Creek) February 19, 2010 This is the 2nd printed edition, dated February 19, 2010; it supersedes the December 2009 edition. A 3rd printed edition is expected in late April 2010 with an additional appendix. The electronic version of this document can be found at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/ncprofile.asp. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative c/o California Natural Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa [email protected] Acknowledgements and credits: The Marine Life Protection Act Initiative thanks the many persons and organizations who responded to requests for information for this profile. Photo credits: Coastline – © iStockphoto/John Anderson Kelp – August Rode Beach – © iStockphoto/Denice Breaux Abalone – Kevin Lee Crab fishers – Ed Roberts Lingcod – Jim Lyle ii How to Use this Document This is the second edition of the Regional Profile of the North Coast Study Region (California- Oregon Border to Alder Creek), authored by the staff and advisors of the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the features and characteristics of the study region, to better inform the design of marine protected areas (MPAs) for the region. Acronyms and Abbreviations In a document of this type, it is natural that a large number of abbreviations and acronyms will be used. In all cases where an acronym is used for the first time, the name or phrase it represents is spelled out.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Cutthroat Trout in California: Population Monitoring, Status, and Management
    Coastal Cutthroat Trout in California: Population Monitoring, Status, and Management JUSTIN GARWOOD ANADROMOUS FISHERIES RESOURCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ARCATA, CALIFORNIA Photo: Thomas Dunklin Coastal Cutthroat Trout Distribution: Streams Rogue River PSMFC (Current) Gerstung 1997 Winchuck River 1675 Km 1100 Km Lagoon Tributaries Small Coastal Streams Smith River Klamath River Redwood Creek Little River Mad River Humboldt Bay Eel River 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Coastal Cutthroat Distribution in Stream Kilometers Stream Habitats Coastal Lagoon and Wetland Distribution Area (Sq. Waterbody Hectares) Big Lagoon 603 Stone Lagoon 234 g 1997 Espa Lagoon 2 Lagoon Creek Pond 2 Big Lagoon Gerstun Lake Earl/ Tolowa 1034 Marshall Pond 6 Lake Earl/ Lake Tolowa 2018 Crescent City Marsh 6 Total 1887 Crescent City Marsh Stone Lagoon Marshall Pond Lagoon Creek Pond Espa Lagoon Photo: Darell Warnock Wetland Habitats Status • SONCC ESU- Listing Not warranted; NOAA 1999 • California Species of Special Concern Photo: Darell Warnock Documents: 1995, 2015 • US Forest Service • Sensitive Species • Management Indicator Species • Threats: Degraded habitat/ water quality, climate (sea-level rise, loss of summer fog, temperature, wildfire), invasive species Fishery Management Fishing Regulations Cutthroat Trout recognized in regulations in 2000 • Last Saturday in May to August 31 • >10 inches minimum • >14 inches minimum size (Stone Lagoon) • 2 Fish daily bag limit Fishery Assessments • Smith River Fishing Creel
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Richard and Genevieve Mcnamara
    # STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 OICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 AX ( 415) 904-5400 • F 4c Filed: June 4, 1999 49th Day: July 22, 1999 Staff: D. Rance Staff Report: June 25, 1999 Hearing Date: July 16, 1999 Commission Action: STAFFREPORT: APPEAL SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Del Norte County • DECISION: Approval with Conditions APPEAL NO.: A-1-DNC-99-037 APPLICANTS: Richard and Genevieve McNamara PROJECT LOCATION: On the west side of Lake Earl Drive between Lakeside Loop and Clayton Drive (APN 11 0-020-64) (Exhibits 1-3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Coastal grading permit for vegetation removal and earthwork associated with a 3-acre commercial timber harvest. APPELLANTS: Friends o..f Del Norte SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: Del Norte County Local Coastal Program; Del Norte County Coastal Grading Permit No. GP-99-007C . • A-1-DNC-99-037 .. Richard and Genevieve McNamara Page2 SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION: NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE • The staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, determine that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed. These grounds include alleged project inconsistency with Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer policies, failure of the LCP to identify the forest area to be logged as an ESHA, and the alleged inadequacy of the LCP to protect wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitats and species in general. The appellants have not raised any substantial issue with the local government's action and its consistency with the certified LCP.
    [Show full text]