DOCSLIB.ORG

THE EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN Beneficial Uses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Eel River Forum The mission of the Eel River Forum is to coordinate and integrate conservation and recovery efforts in the Eel River watershed to conserve its ecological resilience, restore its native fish populations, and protect other watershed THE EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN beneficial uses. These actions are also intended to enhance the economic vitality and A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION sustainability of human communities in the Eel River AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS basin. PREPARED FOR Charter Members THE EEL RIVER FORUM California Trout CA Department of Fish and Wildlife PREPARED BY CA State Parks Coastal Conservancy EEL RIVER FORUM MEMBERS Eel River Recovery Project Eel River Watershed Improvement Group FINAL REPORT Environmental Protection Information Center MAY 2016 Friends of the Eel River Friends of the Van Duzen River Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Mendocino County Resource Conservation District National Marine Fisheries Service North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Pacific Gas and Electric Company Potter Valley Irrigation District Round Valley Indian Tribe Salmonid Restoration Federation Sonoma County Water Agency US Bureau of Land Management US Fish and Wildlife Service US Forest Service Wiyot Tribe Some Text Here. EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN FINAL REPORT 2016 2 | P a g e EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN FINAL REPORT 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 6 1: INTRODUCTION: THE EEL RIVER AND THE EEL RIVER FORUM ......................................................... 9 THE EEL RIVER WATERSHED ......................................................................................................................................... 11 CURRENT STATUS OF SALMONID POPULATIONS ............................................................................................................... 13 2: WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................... 16 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 16 EEL RIVER HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 16 LOW SUMMER STREAMFLOWS ...................................................................................................................................... 18 WATER POLICY AND REGULATIONS PROTECTING STREAMFLOWS ........................................................................................ 20 BRIEF SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 22 3: WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 25 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 25 SUMMARY OF CLEAN WATER ACT ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................ 26 WATER TEMPERATURE ................................................................................................................................................ 26 ADDITIONAL IMPAIRMENTS ALUMINUM, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND MERCURY ..................................................................... 28 NUTRIENT ASSESSMENTS/STUDIES ................................................................................................................................ 28 CYANOBACTERIA (BLUE-GREEN ALGAE) ........................................................................................................................... 29 SURFACE WATER AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM (SWAMP) ....................................................................................... 30 EEL RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT (ERRP) .......................................................................................................................... 31 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 31 4: SEDIMENT IMPAIRMENT AND TMDL IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................. 33 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 33 CALIFORNIA BOARD OF FORESTRY’S FOREST PRACTICE RULES ............................................................................................ 34 REGIONAL WATER BOARD TMDL IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 35 CURRENT STATUS OF SEDIMENT REDUCTION EFFORTS ...................................................................................................... 38 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 40 5: HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT ............................................................................. 43 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 43 CURRENT STATUS OF HABITAT RESTORATION PLANNING ................................................................................................... 44 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 46 6: THE EEL RIVER DELTA AND ESTUARY ............................................................................................ 47 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................. 47 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 50 CURRENT CONDITION IN THE ESTUARY ........................................................................................................................... 51 AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE DELTA-ESTUARY ................................................................................................................ 52 RESTORING THE EEL RIVER ESTUARY .............................................................................................................................. 52 BRIEF SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 53 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 54 7: THE POTTER VALLEY PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 56 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 56 3 | P a g e EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN FINAL REPORT 2016 ANNUAL HYDROGRAPHS AND WATER VOLUMES .............................................................................................................. 59 BLOCK WATER ........................................................................................................................................................... 59 STATUS AND TRENDS OF FISHERY RESOURCES IN THE UPPER EEL RIVER ............................................................................... 62 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 64 ACTIONS IDENTIFIED BUT NOT AGREED UPON BY MEMBERS OF THE EEL RIVER FORUM.......................................................... 68 8: MONITORING .............................................................................................................................. 70 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 70 STATUS OF FISHES IN THE EEL RIVER ............................................................................................................................... 74 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING ........................................................................................................................................... 78 HABITAT MONITORING ................................................................................................................................................ 81 CITIZEN BASED MONITORING ....................................................................................................................................... 83 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM CONSIDERATION ............................................................................................ 85 9: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Recommended publications
  • FINAL Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan

    FINAL Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan

    LITTLE LAKE VALLEY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Draft PREPARED FOR CITY OF WILLITS August 18, 2020 City of Willits Contact: Andrea Trincado, Project Manager City of Willits Engineering Department Prepared by: LACO Associates 776 S. State St., Suite 103 Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-0222 LACO Project No. 8509.07 Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan FINAL DRAFT Prepared for City of Willits TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ......................................... 5 1.2 Background and Legal Authority for Local Groundwater Management ................................. 5 1.3 Plan Components .............................................. 7 1.4 Plan Development Process ................................. 7 1.5 Previous Studies .............................................. 9 2.0 Public Outreach and Involvement ............................ 10 2.1 Public Workshops ........................................... 11 2.2 Issues of Concern to the Public ........................ 12 3.0 Study Area 12 3.1 Location and Description ................................. 12 3.2 Physical Geography and Geology ..................... 13 3.2.1 Geologic Formations ............................. 15 3.3 Climate 15 3.4 Land Use and Population ................................. 18 3.5 Water Use 21 3.5.1 Municipal Water Use ............................ 21 3.5.2 Rural Water Use .................................. 23 3.5.3 Tribal Water Use ................................. 23 3.5.4 Environmental Water Use ....................... 23 4.0 Hydrogeology 23 4.1 Principal Aquifers ......................................... 23 4.1.1 Aquifer I – Holocene Alluvium ................ 24 August 18, 2020 Page 1 of 49 Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan FINAL DRAFT Prepared for City of Willits 4.1.2 Aquifer II – Pliocene to Pleistocene Continental Basin Deposits ..................... 25 4.1.3 Jurassic-Cretaceous Franciscan Complex .. 26 4.2 Recharge Sources ........................................... 27 4.3 Historic Variations in Groundwater Levels ........
  • Efforts to Restore the Mattole River and Its Watershed Chad Buran

    Efforts to Restore the Mattole River and Its Watershed Chad Buran

    Efforts to restore the Mattole River and its watershed Chad Buran Introduction Up and down the Pacific Coast of the Northwest United States, the salmon and steelhead populations have been severely impacted by the increased timber harvesting and road construction along the streams that the fish depend on for spawning. The Mattole River is one example of how these activities have descimated the fishery. The efforts to restore the Mattole watershed is one of the first citizen-initiated watershed restoration projects in North America. For more than twenty years, the inhabitants of the watershed have worked to improve the ecological health of streams, fisheries, forests, and soils of the watershed. The Mattole Salmon Group (MSG) was formed by citizens of the watershed in the 1970s in response to the decline in the Mattole salmon fishery. The initial restoration efforts began in 1980, to provide substitute spawning habitat. In the mid-1980s, the Mattole Restoration Council (MRC) was founded to link the various restoration efforts already underway and to coordinate those efforts in the context of the whole basin. These groups have used a variety of restoration techniques to improve the spawning habitat and the health of the Mattole River. The objective of this paper is to describe the restoration approaches that these two Mattole River groups have used and to review the success of these techniques in this location. I will also describe how techniques have been used in different contexts in the watershed and how they have worked in under various conditions of river flow in these locations. Geographic Setting and Historical Context The Mattole River drains a 304-square-mile (787-square-kilometer) watershed in the Coast Ranges of northwestern California.
  • Final Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (Including

    Final Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (Including

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX FINAL Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (including Tomki Creek, Outlet Creek and Lake Pillsbury) Total Maximum Daily Loads for Temperature and Sediment Approved by date Original signed December 29, 2004 Alexis Strauss Director, Water Division Note: For further information please contact Palma Risler at 415/972-3451 and [email protected] or Dan Pingaro at 415/977-4275 and [email protected] Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Overview - 1 1.2. Watershed Characteristics - 2 1.3. Endangered Species Act Consultation - 4 1.4. Organization - 4 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT 2.1. Fish Population Problems - 5 2.2. Temperature Problems - 7 2.3. Sediment Problems - 14 2.4. Water Quality Standards - 17 CHAPTER 3: TEMPERATURE TMDL 3.1. Interpreting the Existing Water Quality Standards for Temperature - 18 3.2. Temperature Modeling - 20 3.2.1 Temperature and Solar Radiation Modeling - 21 3.2.2 Selection of Scenario Corresponding to Water Quality Standards - 24 3.3.1 Loading Capacity and TMDL – Solar Radiation for all stream reaches - 26 3.3.2 Shade Allocations - 26 3.3.3 Margin of Safety - 27 3.3.4 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions - 27 3.4 Instream Heat TMDL – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 28 3.4.1 Selection of Scenario Corresponding to Water Quality Standards - 34 3.4.2 Water Quality Indicators – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 34 3.4.3 Instream Heat Loading Capacity and TMDL - Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek- 34 3.4.4 Instream Heat Allocations – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 35 3.4.5 Margin of Safety - 35 3.4.6 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions - 35 CHAPTER 4: SEDIMENT TMDL 4.1.
  • King Range National Conservation Area Case Study

    King Range National Conservation Area Case Study

    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2004 King Range National Conservation Area Case Study Ann Morgan Doug Cannon University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons Citation Information Ann Morgan & Doug Cannon, King Range National Conservation Area Case Study (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Ann Morgan & Doug Cannon, KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA CASE STUDY (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA CASE STUDY Ann Morgan and Doug Cannon Natural Resources Law Center January 9, 2004 Table of Contents BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 1 PUBLIC LAW 91-476....................................................................................................................... 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY .................................................................................................................
  • The Right Thing to Do: Returning Land to the Wiyot Tribe

    The Right Thing to Do: Returning Land to the Wiyot Tribe

    THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Sociology May, 2008 THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson Approved by the Master’s Thesis Committee: Jennifer Eichstedt, Committee Chair Date Elizabeth Watson, Committee Member Date Judith Little, Committee Member Date Jennifer Eichstedt, Graduate Coordinator Date Chris Hopper, Interim Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE Karen Elizabeth Nelson In 2004, the Eureka City Council legally returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot tribe. This return occurred one hundred and forty four years after the Indian Island massacre. This research explores the returning of sacred tribal land in the context of collective apologies and reconciliations after generations of Native genocide. The significance of this case study includes a detailed narration of how the land transfer occurred and more importantly why it was labeled “the right thing to do” by Eureka City Council members and staff. This case study was examined with a grounded theory methodology. Using no hypotheses, the research and the research methodology unfolded in a non-linear process, letting the research speak for itself. Detailed interviews and a review of documents were used to qualify and quantify this unique community based social act. The results of this case study include how and why the Eureka City Council returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot people.
  • Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report

    Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report

    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in partnership with the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Humboldt Redwood Company Summary Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Grantee Agreement: P1210516 Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report Prepared by: David Lam and Sharon Powers December 2016 Abstract Monitoring of coho salmon population spatial structure was conducted, as a component of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program, in the lower Eel River and its tributaries, inclusive of the Van Duzen River, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Potential coho salmon habitat within the lower Eel River and Van Duzen River study areas was segmented into a sample frame of 204 one-to-three kilometer stream survey reaches. Annually, a randomly selected subset of sample frame stream reaches was monitored by direct observation. Using mask and snorkel, surveyors conducted two independent pass dive observations to estimate fish species presence and numbers. A total of 211 surveys were conducted on 163 reaches, with 2,755 pools surveyed during the summers of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Coho salmon were observed in 13.5% of reaches and 7.5% of pools surveyed, and the percent of the study area occupied by coho salmon juveniles was estimated at 7% in 2013 and 2014, 3% in 2015, and 4% in 2016. i Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................
  • 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Opens a New Window

    3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Opens a New Window

    3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section provides information regarding impacts of the proposed project on hydrology and water quality. The information used in this analysis is taken from: ► Water Supply Assessment for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project (Stantec 2019) (Appendix T); ► Humboldt County General Plan (Humboldt County 2017); ► North Coast Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (North Coast IRWMP) (North Coast Resource Partnership 2018); ► Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) (North Coast RWQCB 2018); ► the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Mapping Program (2018); ► National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data; and ► California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater (DWR 2003). 3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION Weather in the project area is characterized by temperate, dry summers and cool, wet winters. In winter, precipitation is heavy. Average annual rainfall can be up to 47 inches in Scotia (WRCC 2019). The rainy season, which generally begins in October and lasts through April, includes most of the precipitation (e.g., 90 percent of the mean annual runoff of the Eel River occurs during winter). Precipitation data from water years 1981–2010 for Eureka, approximately 20 miles north of the project area, show a mean annual precipitation of 40 inches (NOAA and CNRFC 2019). Mean annual precipitation in the project area is lowest in the coastal zone area (40 inches per year) and highest in the upper elevations of the Upper Cape Mendocino and Eel River hydrologic units to the east (85 inches per year) (Cal-Atlas 1996). The dry season, generally May through September, is usually defined by morning fog and overcast conditions.
  • Humboldt Bay Water Trails

    Humboldt Bay Water Trails

    Aldergrove Marsh HBNWR To Trinidad 299 Arcata Ja ne s C Humboldt Bay reek National Wildlife Refuge ARCATA HIKING BY APPOINTMENT ONLY Arcata Community Bottoms 101 Forest Mad River k Slough e e r C Boat Ramp 255 s e n a BLM Manila J Dunes Mad River Arcata Marsh Slough Wildlife Area and Wildlife Manila Sanctuary h g ou Community l S l ie n Park Mc Da BAYSIDE MANILA Humboldt Bay National Manila Dunes Jac ob Recreation Area Wildlife y C r e e Refuge k a Arcata Bay l u s 255 n Bracut Ocean i n Marsh e P SAMOA Indian Island HBNWR Fay Slough Wildlife Area INDIANOLA see inset at left Murray Eureka Field a Slough Airport Slough Eurek Eureka a Boat Ramp o Pacific Marina m a S Eureka Marsh EUREKA FAIRHAVEN Samoa Boat Ramp 3 Corners County Park Sequoia h g Park u o l S n a Samoa Dunes Hilfiker y R N o r Recreation Area th Je Elk Beach tty River S o City ut h Jetty Wildlife Area DANGEROUS CURRENTS h g u o South Jetty l S i n Mar t Humboldt Bay t i Water Trails Map p Elk River State S Wildlife Area King Salmon Always yield to swimmers, motorized vessels and other watercraft. th u o S Water Trail Access Wildlife Viewing Area E l k Field's Landing R i Low Tide Water Trails v e County Park r Camping To High Tide Water Trails Headwaters Forest Reserve Public Lands FIELDS Interpretive Center LANDING Mud Flats HUMBOLDT Pedestrian Access HILL Parking Interpretive Trail Boat Launch 101 Wheelchair Accessible South Bay Marina Table Bluff County Park Restrooms Pets on Leash HBNWR Picnic Area Fishing Humboldt Bay National SCALE Wildlife Refuge KILOMETERS 0.5 1.5 2.5 KILOMETERS Table Bluff 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 N MILES 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 MILES 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 Hookton Slough Base map layer courtesy Natural Resources Services Boat Dock To Loleta Headwaters S:\Maps\Humboldt Bay Water Trails Map_2 sided.pdf (print 11x17 in color using HP ProB9180 printer) Forest Reserve S:\Maps\Humboldt Bay Water Trails Map_2 sided.pdf (print 11x17 in color using HP ProB9180 printer).
  • Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017

    Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017

    Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017 By: Eli Asarian and Patrick Higgins Edited by: Diane Higgins Performed for: The Eel River Recovery Project August 2018 Business Sponsors of ERRP Cyanotoxin Analysis Thanks to Individual Crowdfunding Donors and Those Who Contributed Off-line to Support ERRP Cyanotoxin Work: Barbara & David Sopjes Dr. Andrew Stubblefield Mary Power Ree Slocum Bill Dietrich Ben Middlemiss Dean & Sharon Edell Judy Schriebman Jack Crider Daron Pedroja Tim Talbert Gil Anda Ken Miller Will Parrish Dani Walthall Chris McBride Zane and Amanda Ruddy Christina Tran Brett Lovelace Sarah Ottley Ken Vance-Borland Karen & Scott Welsh Thomas Daugherty Pureum Kim Keith Bouma-Gregson Alex Christie Lee McClellan Matthew Amberg Charlie Liphart Eric Damon Walters April Mason Amy Collette Jason Hartwick Marissa Adams Kristin McDonald John Filce Carl Zichella Robert Leher Thanks also to experiment.com, our crowdfunding host that raises funds for scientific research throughout the World: https://experiment.com/projects/when-does-the-eel-river-turn-toxic- patterns-in-cyanotoxin-occurrence-2013-2016. This study was postponed a year so we could collect 2017 cyanotoxin data. Thanks for your patience. Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Background
  • South Fork Eel River & Tributaries PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC

    South Fork Eel River & Tributaries PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC

    Management Agency: South Fork Eel River & Tributaries Bureau of Land Management ~ BLM Arcata Field Office PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS University of California ~ Angelo Coast Range Reserve These proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers support threatened Location: Mendocino County and endangered populations of salmon and steelhead and CA 2nd Congressional District rare plants. They also provide outstanding research Watershed: opportunities of nearly pristine undeveloped watersheds. South Fork Eel River Wild & Scenic River Miles: South Fork Eel River – 12.3 miles South Fork Eel River—12.3 The South Fork Eel River supports the largest concentration Elder Creek—7 of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in the region. East Branch South Fork Eel River—23.1 Cedar Creek—9.6 Federal officials recently identified the river as essential for the recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. The Outstanding Values: upper portion of this segment is located on the Angelo Anadromous fisheries, ecological, Biosphere Reserve, hydrological, wildlife, recreation Preserve managed for wild lands research by the University of California. Angelo Reserve access roads are open to For More Information: public hiking. The lower portion flows through the existing Steve Evans—CalWild [email protected] South Fork Wilderness managed by the BLM. The river (916) 708-3155 offers class IV-V whitewater boating opportunities. The river would be administered through a cooperative management agreement between the BLM and the State of California. Elder Creek – 7 miles This nearly pristine stream is a National Natural Landmark, Hydrologic Benchmark, and a UN-recognized Biosphere Reserve. A tributary of the South Fork Eel River, the creek is an important contributor to the South Fork’s anadromous Front Photo: South Fork Eel River fishery.

  • Our Trails Please Visit: Or Call (707) 962-0470

    Leggett Peter Douglas Trail d a o R l HWY 1 a s U South Fork Eel River Eel Fork South D B ROA RANSCOMB South Fork Eel River Westport Wages Creek k h For Ten rt Mile No Ri ver Newport Trail Seaside Beach Mid dle F ork Ten Mile R Ten Mile River iver HWY 1 So uth Fo rk Ten Mile River Cleone F ORT BR AGG SHERWOOD ROAD eek Pudding Cr Fort Bragg Noyo River Noyo Harbor Viewpoint Hare Creek Beach Hare Creek Belinda Point Trail HWY 20 Caspar Caspar Uplands Caspar Creek ROAD 409 Trail HWY 1 Big River LITTLE LAKE ROAD Mendocino Mendocino Bay Viewpoint rk Albion th Fo River Little River Nor Little River Little River COMPTCHE-UKIAH Blowhole Trail ROAD Comptche Albion River Trailheads Dark Gulch Trail Towns Albion F L Y 0 5 N Navarro Blufflands Trail N C Navarro Point R E E 1 2 3 4 Navarro River K R Scale (miles) O A HWY 128 D Peg & John er Frankel Trail Riv rro rth Fork Nava PH No ILO -GREEN WO OD Elk RO AD Coastal Trails from north to south Peter Douglas Trail: 2.3-mile addition to the beautiful Lost Coast Trail. Look for milepost 90.7 on Highway 1 and Usal Rd. Start hiking near Usal campground at Sinkyone State park, or mile marker 4.5 on Usal Rd. Newport Trail: 1.25-mile segment of the California Coastal Trail for bikes and pedestrians. Trail is parallel to Highway 1 between mileposts 72.15 and 73.55.
  • Navarro Watershed Restoration Plan

    Navarro Watershed Restoration Plan

    NAVARRO WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN A JOINT PROJECT OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY WATER AGENCY THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY THE ANDERSON VALLEY LAND TRUST Prepared by: Entrix, Inc. Pacific Watershed Associates Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. The Navarro Watershed Community Advisory Group Daniel T. Sicular, Ph.D. JUNE, 1998 NAVARRO WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN Published Jointly by: ANDERSON VALLEY LAND TRUST, INCORPORATED P.O. Box 1000 Boonville, CA 95415 (707) 895-2090 CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY 1330 Broadway Oakland, CA 94612-2530 (510) 286-1015 MENDOCINO COUNTY WATER AGENCY Courthouse Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-4589 This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... List of Figures........................................................................................................................ Glossary ................................................................................................................................. Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................. Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Basis of Need for Restoration Plan...............................................................