DOCSLIB.ORG

Priority Action Coho Team 2018 Progress Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Priority Action Coho Team 2018 Progress Report Priority Action Coho Team: Strategic Partnering to Accelerate Central California Coast Coho Salmon Recovery California Department of Fish and Wildlife NOAA Fisheries 2019 PACT 2019 Report CDFW/NOAA Fisheries Suggested citation: Priority Action Coho Team (PACT). 2019. Priority Action Coho Team: Strategic Partnering to Accelerate Central California Coast Coho Salmon Recovery 164 pp. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries. Sacramento, California. Contacts: For further information on PACT please contact; Stephen Swales, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Branch. Email: [email protected] Erin Seghesio, NOAA Fisheries. Email: [email protected] Cover Design: The PACT logo - design by Ed Huff – is a product of the PACT Education, Outreach and Media Interaction Technical Working Group. 2 PACT 2019 Report CDFW/NOAA Fisheries Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the following individuals for their contribution to the PACT initiative. We apologize to any we may have inadvertently omitted from this list. Name Organization Derek Acomb CDFW Charlotte Ambrose NOAA Fisheries Jonathan Ambrose NOAA Fisheries Joyce Ambrosius NOAA Fisheries Greg Andrew Marin Municipal Water District Jane Arnold CDFW Tim Ash CalTrans Kristine Atkinson CDFW Steven Bargston Water Quality Control Board Chris Berry City of Santa Cruz Devon Best NOAA Fisheries Lisa Bolton Trout Unlimited Dick Butler NOAA Fisheries Nick Call NOAA Law Enforcement Amy Campbell TNC Bob Coey NOAA Fisheries Bill Cox CDFW Lisa Crosse Marin County Bradley Daniels Trout Unlimited Tom Daugherty NOAA Fisheries Matt Deitch Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Brock Dolman Occidental Arts and Ecology Center Scott Downie CDFW Anne Dubay Sonoma County Water Agency Walt Duffy Humboldt State University Matt Erickson CDFW Melissa Farinha CDFW Michael Fawcett CDFW Leslie Ferguson Water Board Darren Fong National Park Service Tim Frahm Farm Bureau or RCD Adriane Garayalde Siskiyou Valley RCD Carlos Garza NOAA Fisheries Karen Gear State Coastal Conservancy Corrine Gray CDFW Sean Hayes NOAA Fisheries Bill Hearn NOAA Fisheries Justine Herrigg State Water Resources Control Board 3 PACT 2019 Report CDFW/NOAA Fisheries Name Organization Sam Hertzberg FishNet 4C David Hines NOAA Fisheries Dale Hopkins Water Quality Control Board Jeanette Howard TNC Andrew Hughan CDFW Lisa Hulette TNC Mandy Ingham NOAA Fisheries Jeff Jahn NOAA Fisheries Brian Johnson Trout Unlimited Mary Ann King Trout Unlimited Manfred Kittel CDFW Kristen Kittleson Santa Cruz County John Klochock USFWS Curtis Knight CalTrout Tony LaBanca CDFW Peter LaCivita Army Corps Michael Lacy CDFW Mark Lancaster 5Counties Eric Larson CDFW Katie Lee State Water Resources Control Board Stafford Lehr CDFW Michelle Leicester CDFW Liz Lewis Marin County Sally Liu TNC Rick Macedo CDFW Sungnome Madrone Mattole Restoration Group Carol Mandel USDA Neil Manji CDFW David Manning Sonoma County Water Agency Matthew McCarthy State Water Resources Control Board Darren Mierau CalTrout Jim Milbury NOAA Fisheries David Moore CDFW George Neillands CDFW Jennifer Nelson CDFW Kellyx Nelson San Mateo RCD Mary Nicholl NOAA Fisheries Mariska Obedzinski UC Extension Margo Parks Cattlemen's Association Joe Pecharich NOAA Fisheries Jason Pelletier TNC Libby Pischel Marin Municipal Water District Joe Pisciotto CDFW Michael Reichmuth National Park Service 4 PACT 2019 Report CDFW/NOAA Fisheries Name Organization Allan Renger CDFW Dan Resnik CDFW Steven Riske CDFW Law Enforcement Jim Robins Alnus Ecological Services Derek Roy NOAA Law Enforcement Erik Schmidt Sustainable Conservation Jim Sedell NFWF Erin Seghesio NOAA Fisheries Gail Seymour CDFW Kevin Shaffer CDFW Duane Shintaku CalFire Caroline Shoulders National Park Service Dan Shultz State Water Resources Control Board Jerry Smith San Jose University Brian Spence NOAA Fisheries Todd Steiner SPAWN Gary Stern NOAA Fisheries Bill Stevens NOAA Fisheries Erick Sturm NOAA Fisheries Stephen Swales CDFW Dan Torquemada NOAA Law Enforcement Roy Torres NOAA Law Enforcement Paige Uttley CDFW Brad Valentine CDFW Alecia VanAtta NOAA Fisheries Cathy Vouchilas CDFW Jonathan Warmerdam North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Craig Weightman CDFW Ben White CDFW Scott Wilson CDFW Brett Wilson CDFW Dan Wilson NOAA Fisheries Dave Wright Campbell Timberlands 5 PACT 2019 Report CDFW/NOAA Fisheries Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 3 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .....................................................................................10 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 12 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................16 1. Habitat Restoration & Protection Technical Working Group ....................................................... 21 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 21 Summary of Habitat Restoration and Protection TWG Efforts ............................................................... 21 2. Captive Rearing and Rescue Technical Working Group ............................................................... 62 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 62 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 62 Rescue Protocol for CCC Coho Salmon ESU ............................................................................................ 62 Captive Rearing Plan for CCC Coho Salmon ESU ..................................................................................... 63 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 65 Results and Regional Recommendations ................................................................................................ 69 CCC Coho Salmon ESU-wide Recommendations ................................................................................ 69 South of San Francisco Bay ................................................................................................................. 70 North of San Francisco Bay ................................................................................................................. 76 Integration of Captive Rearing with other Efforts .............................................................................. 86 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 87 3. Instream Flow and Conservation Technical Working Group ........................................................ 89 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 89 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 89 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 89 Current Programs and Policy .................................................................................................................. 90 Procedures and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 92 Priority Actions for Flow Enhancement .................................................................................................. 94 Region-Wide Priority Actions .................................................................................................................. 95 6 PACT 2019 Report CDFW/NOAA Fisheries 1. Instream Gauging ............................................................................................................................ 95 2. Instream Flow Studies ..................................................................................................................... 97 3. Develop Water Storage ................................................................................................................... 97 4. Compliance for Permitted Diverters and Dischargers .................................................................... 98 5. Diversions and Discharges .............................................................................................................. 99 6. Regulatory Streamlining .................................................................................................................. 99 7. Enhance Summer Base Flow ........................................................................................................... 99 8. Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................. 100 Watershed-Specific Priority
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regional Open Space District (District) Completed the Bid Process on Wednesday June 17, 2015 with Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving As the Apparent Low Bidder
    R-15-89 Meeting 15-16 June 24, 2015 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Contract to Implement the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration Project at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving of Half Moon Bay, CA, for a total contract amount not to exceed $613,566, which includes the project proposal amount of $533,536 and a fifteen percent contingency amount of $80,030, to implement the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration Project at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. 2. Determine that the recommended action is consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Implementation of the La Honda Creek Master Plan, approved by the Board on August 22, 2012. SUMMARY The Request for Bids for the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration Project (Project) was released on May 20, 2015. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) completed the bid process on Wednesday June 17, 2015 with Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving as the apparent low bidder. This project was previously brought before the Board on May 14, 2014 (See R-14-77) to authorize the District to enter into a grant agreement through the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to help fund this important sediment reduction and habitat restoration work. The District has been awarded this grant, which will fund $230,970 of the project construction costs.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of San Mateo County San Pedro San Pedro Creek flows northwesterly, entering the Pacific Ocean at Pacifica State Beach. It drains a watershed about eight square miles in area. The upper portions of the drainage contain springs (feeding the south and middle forks) that produce perennial flow in the creek. Documents with information regarding steelhead in the San Pedro Creek watershed may refer to the North Fork San Pedro Creek and the Sanchez Fork. For purposes of this report, these tributaries are considered as part of the mainstem. A 1912 letter regarding San Mateo County streams indicates that San Pedro Creek was stocked. A fishway also is noted on the creek (Smith 1912). Titus et al. (in prep.) note DFG records of steelhead spawning in the creek in 1941. In 1968, DFG staff estimated that the San Pedro Creek steelhead run consisted of 100 individuals (Wood 1968). A 1973 stream survey report notes, “Spawning habitat is a limiting factor for steelhead” (DFG 1973a, p. 2). The report called the steelhead resources of San Pedro Creek “viable and important” but cited passage at culverts, summer water diversion, and urbanization effects on the stream channel and watershed hydrology as placing “the long-term survival of the steelhead resource in question”(DFG 1973a, p. 5). The lower portions of San Pedro Creek were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1989. Three O. mykiss year classes were observed during the study throughout the lower creek. Researchers noticed “a marked exodus from the lower creek during the late summer” of yearling and age 2+ individuals, many of which showed “typical smolt characteristics” (Sullivan 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------) 14
    (ENDORSED) 1 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, Chief Counsel ANDREW H. SAWYER, Assistant Chief Counsel 2 M. G. TAYLOR, III, Senior Staff Counsel FILED • BARBARA A. KATZ, Staff Counsel JAN 2 9 1993 3 901 P Street WARREN SLOCUM, County C!cri( Sacramento, California 95814 j:,\!l;.l"'if' ",.,;;."""" ''­ :':y , J:.;i";J 1 "~1."""....ii, ..': .. ;• .'.~ 4 Telephone: (916) 657 -209 7 • C'EPu;Y C~:~~~~ 5 Attorneys for the State Water Resources Control Board 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 In the Matter of the ) No. 355792 Determination of the Rights of ) 10 the various Claimants to the ) DECREE Water of ) 11 ) SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------------------------------) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................. i . , , 4 INDEX OF CLAIMANTS ........................................... iii " 5 Defini tions ............................................. 2 6 State Water Resources Control Board Map ................. 4 7 General. Entitlement ..................................... 4 8 Priori ty of Rights ...................................... 5 9 Post-1914 Appropriations ................................ 6 10 Seasons of Use .......................................... 7 11 Domestic Use ............................................ 7 12 S tockwa tering Use ....................................... 7 13 Irrigation Use .......................................... 8 14 Domestic and Stockwatering Uses During
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS
    San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS Introduction The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (Program) performs Watershed Assessment and Monitoring (WAM) component activities in compliance with its municipal stormwater NPDES permit requirements. In the past, a consistent countywide watershed boundary data layer has not been available to meet Program needs for mapping and analyzing watershed-related data. As a result, the Program has previously utilized the best existing available data sets and/or developed new data to meet the objectives of specific individual projects. For example, creek location and watershed boundary data were developed to characterize imperviousness and channel modifications in seventeen watersheds in San Mateo County (STOPPP 2002). In another example, Program staff compiled existing countywide watershed data and developed new data needed to identify watershed areas considered exempt from Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) requirements (STOPPP 2005). The Program previously identified two major information gaps in digital watershed boundary data: 1) limited storm drain catchment data were available for urban areas and 2) consistent countywide watershed data layers were not available (STOPPP 2005). Recent development of watershed data in urbanized portions of San Mateo County has provided an opportunity to address these information gaps. This memo describes the methods used by Program staff to create a consistent countywide watershed data layer that includes delineation of storm drain catchments in urban areas. Consistent watershed and creek data set will assist Program staff in watershed characterization and the identification and prioritization of potential future monitoring and watershed assessment activities. Background In 1999, the State of California developed a statewide watershed data layer entitled the California Interagency Watershed Map (Calwater).
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising
    Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate Gordon S. Becker Katherine M. Smetak David A. Asbury This report should be cited as: Becker, G.S., K.M. Smetak, and D.A. Asbury. 2010. Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation: Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Approach and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1. San Mateo County .......................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2. Santa Cruz County .......................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3. Montery County .............................................................................................................. 67 Chapter 4. San Luis Obispo County ............................................................................................... 97 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan
    Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan Our mission is to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt in perpetuity; protect and restore the natural environment; and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. FINAL August 2012 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors Pete Siemens, Ward 1 Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga Yoriko Kishimoto, Ward 2 Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, Stanford, Sunnyvale Jed Cyr, Ward 3 Sunnyvale Curt Riffle, Ward 4 Los Altos, Mountain View Nonette Hanko, Ward 5 East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Stanford Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Atherton, La Honda, Loma Mar, Menlo Park, Pescadero, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Gregorio, Woodside Cecily Harris, Ward 7 El Granada, Half Moon Bay, Montara, Moss Beach, Princeton, Redwood City, San Carlos, Woodside Former La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee Larry Hassett, Chair Mary Davey (Former Director, Ward 2) Curt Riffle General Manager Stephen E. Abbors Planning Staff Ana Montaño Ruiz, AICP, Planning Manager Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager Matt Baldzikowski, Planner III Gretchen Laustsen, Planner II Casey Cleve, GIS Coordinator Jeannie Buscaglia, Administrative Assistant Lisa Bankosh, Planner III, Project Manager Former Planning Staff Matt Freeman Stella Cousins Andrea Christenson Erica Simmons Galli Basson Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Friday, December 10, 2004 Part II Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 226 Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Steelhead (O. mykiss) in California; Proposed Rule VerDate jul<14>2003 22:20 Dec 09, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.SGM 10DEP2 71880 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DATES: Comments on this proposed rule and represent an important component must be received by 5 p.m. P.s.t. on in the evolutionary legacy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric February 8, 2005. Requests for public biological species (56 FR 58612; Administration hearings must be made in writing by November 20, 1991). Using this January 24, 2005. approach, every Pacific salmon and O. 50 CFR Part 226 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, mykiss population in the U.S. is part of identified by docket number a distinct population segment that is [Docket No. 041123329–4329–01; I.D. No. [041123329–4329–01] and RIN number eligible for listing as a threatened or 110904F] [0648–AO04], by any of the following endangered species under the ESU. In methods: ESA listing determinations for Pacific RIN 0648–AO04 • E-mail: salmon and O. mykiss since 1991 we [email protected]. Include have identified 52 ESUs in Washington, Endangered and Threatened Species; docket number [041123329–4329–01] Oregon, Idaho and California. Presently, Designation of Critical Habitat for and RIN number [0648–AO04] in the 25 ESUs are listed as threatened or Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units subject line of the message.
    [Show full text]
  • National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211
    National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211 Punta Gorda, California. Critical habi- following ESUs as described in para- tat consists of the water, substrate, graph (a) of this section, and as further and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine described in paragraphs (b) through (e) and riverine reaches (including off- of this section. The textual descrip- channel habitats) in hydrologic units tions of critical habitat for each ESU and counties identified in Table 6 of are included in paragraphs (f) through this part. Accessible reaches are those (l) of this section, and these descrip- within the historical range of the ESU tions are the definitive source for de- that can still be occupied by any life termining the critical habitat bound- stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible aries. General location maps are pro- reaches are those above specific dams identified in Table 6 of this part or vided at the end of each ESU descrip- above longstanding, naturally impass- tion (paragraphs (f) through (l) of this able barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in section) and are provided for general existence for at least several hundred guidance purposes only, and not as a years). definitive source for determining crit- ical habitat boundaries. [64 FR 24061, May 5, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004] (a) Critical habitat is designated for the following ESUs in the following § 226.211 Critical habitat for Seven California counties: Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in California. Critical habitat is designated in the following California counties for the ESU State—counties (1) California Coastal Chinook ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPAETMENT OF THE INTEEIOE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DiRECTOB WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 297 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART III. PACIFIC COAST AND GREAT BASIN STREAMS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1913 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained on streams in the Great Basin and the streams tributary to the Pacific Ocean from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 241-244. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN THE PACIFIC COAST DRAINAGE BASINS AND THE GREAT BASIN, CALIFORNIA. ____ By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the third of a series of reports on the surface waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and bear the following titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacra­ mento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Insurance Study Number 06081Cv001b
    SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 2 COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ATHERTON, TOWN OF 1 060312 BELMONT, CITY OF 065016 BRISBANE, CITY OF 060314 BURLINGAME, CITY OF 065019 COLMA, TOWN OF 060316 DALY CITY, CITY OF 060317 EAST PALO ALTO, CITY OF 060708 FOSTER CITY, CITY OF 060318 HALF MOON BAY, CITY OF 060319 HILLSBOROUGH, TOWN OF 060320 MENLO PARK, CITY OF 060321 MILLBRAE, CITY OF 065045 PACIFICA, CITY OF 060323 PORTOLA VALLEY, TOWN OF 065052 REDWOOD CITY, CITY OF 060325 SAN BRUNO, CITY OF 1 060326 SAN CARLOS, CITY OF 060327 SAN MATEO COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 060311 SAN MATEO, CITY OF 060328 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF 065062 WOODSIDE, TOWN OF 060330 1 No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified REVISED: JULY 16, 2015 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 06081CV001B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components.
    [Show full text]
  • Waters of the United States in California with Salmon And/Or Steelhead Identified As NMFS Listed Resources of Concern for EPA's PGP
    Waters of the United States in California with Salmon and/or Steelhead identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern for EPA's PGP ESU Hydrologic Unit Sub-area Outlet Stream Stream' Watershed Name Hydrologic Unit Sub-area 0 California Coast chinook salmon 1 (1) Redwood Creek Hydrologic Unit 1107— Redwood Creek Hydrologic Unit 1107 2 (i) Orick Hydrologic Sub-area 110710. Orick Hydrologic Sub-area 110710 3 Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek (Lat –41.2923, Long –124.0917) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 4 Boyes Creek (41.3639, –123.9845); 5 Bridge Creek (41.137, –124.0012); 6 Brown Creek (41.3986, –124.0012); 7 Emerald (Harry Weir) (41.2142, –123.9812); 8 Godwood Creek (41.3889, –124.0312); 9 Larry Dam Creek (41.3359, –124.003); 10 Little Lost Man Creek (41.2944, –124.0014); 11 Lost Man Creek (41.3133, –123.9854); 12 May Creek (41.3547, –123.999); 13 McArthur Creek (41.2705, –124.041); 14 North Fork Lost Man Creek (41.3374, –123.9935); 15 Prairie Creek (41.4239, –124.0367); 16 Tom McDonald (41.1628, –124.0419). 17 (ii) Beaver Hydrologic Sub-area 110720. Beaver Hydrologic Sub-area 110720 18 Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek (Lat 41.1367, Long –123.9309) upstream to endpoint(s): 19 Lacks Creek (41.0334, –123.8124); 20 Minor Creek (40.9706, –123.7899). 21 (iii) Lake Prairie Hydrologic Sub-area 110730. Lake Prairie Hydrologic Sub-area 110730 22 Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek (Lat 40.9070, Long –123.8170) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 23 Redwood Creek (40.7432, –123.7206). 24 (2) Trinidad Hydrologic Unit 1108— Trinidad Hydrologic Unit 1108 25 (i) Big Lagoon Hydrologic Sub-area 110810.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation
    Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate APPENDIX Gordon S. Becker Katherine M. Smetak David A. Asbury Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration This appendix accompanies the Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation1, in which rearing habitat related information was used to identify areas with high potential for steelhead production in watersheds south of the Golden Gate. The following narrative describes the basis for our estimates of stream miles of suitable rearing habitat in watersheds with reproducing O. mykiss populations. 1 Becker, G.S., K.M. Smetak, and D.A. Asbury. 2010. Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation: Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Table of Contents San Mateo County ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Santa Cruz County ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Monterey County ............................................................................................................................................. 53 San Luis Obispo County ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]