DOCSLIB.ORG

Recent Efforts to Monitor Anadromous Oncorhynchus Species in the California Coastal Region: a Compilation of Metadata

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS AUGUST 2005 RECENT EFFORTS TO MONITOR ANADROMOUS ONCORHYNCHUS SPECIES IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL REGION: A COMPILATION OF METADATA Sarah Helmbrecht David A. Boughton NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-381 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), organized in 1970, has evolved into an agency which establishes national policies and manages and conserves our oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. An organizational element within NOAA, the Office of Fisheries is responsible for fisheries policy and the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition to its formal publications, the NMFS uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series, however, reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information. The TMs have not received complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing. AUGUST 2005 RECENT EFFORTS TO MONITOR ANADROMOUS ONCORHYNCHUS SPECIES IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL REGION: A COMPILATION OF METADATA Sarah Helmbrecht1 and David A. Boughton2,3 1 University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 2 Fisheries Ecology Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 ([email protected]) 3 Corresponding author NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-381 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere National Marine Fisheries Service William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Abstract......................................................................................................................................... ii Part 1: Collection of Metadata................................................................................................ 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary Results ........................................................................................................................ 8 Part 2: Brief Summaries of Monitoring in Each ESU..................................................... 16 Overview................................................................................................................................... 16 Chinook salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California ESU ................................................. 18 Chinook salmon, Upper Klamath-Trinity ESU ........................................................................ 20 Chinook salmon, California Coastal ESU ................................................................................ 22 Chinook salmon, no specific ESU ............................................................................................ 24 Coho salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal ESU.......................................... 26 Coho salmon, Central California Coast ESU............................................................................ 28 Coho salmon, no specific ESU ................................................................................................. 30 Steelhead, Klamath Mountain Province ESU........................................................................... 32 Steelhead, Northern California ESU......................................................................................... 34 Steelhead, Central California Coast ESU ................................................................................. 36 Steelhead, South-Central California Coast ESU....................................................................... 38 Steelhead, Southern California ESU......................................................................................... 40 Steelhead, no specific ESU....................................................................................................... 42 Part 3: Detailed Listing of Monitoring Efforts ................................................................. 43 Overview................................................................................................................................... 43 Key to coastal HUC names referenced in Part 3....................................................................... 45 Chinook salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California ESU ................................................. 46 Chinook salmon, Upper Klamath-Trinity ESU ........................................................................ 50 Chinook salmon, California Coastal ESU ................................................................................ 60 Chinook salmon, no specific ESU ............................................................................................ 73 Coho salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal ESU.......................................... 74 Coho salmon, Central California Coast ESU.......................................................................... 100 Coho salmon, no specific ESU ............................................................................................... 117 Steelhead, Klamath Mountain Province ESU......................................................................... 118 Steelhead, Northern California ESU....................................................................................... 131 Steelhead, Central California Coast ESU ............................................................................... 150 Steelhead, South-Central California Coast ESU..................................................................... 166 Steelhead, Southern California ESU....................................................................................... 178 Steelhead, No specific ESU .................................................................................................... 195 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 197 Sources of Information ......................................................................................................... 198 Correspondents (Contributors of metadata)............................................................................ 198 Written sources of metadata.................................................................................................... 200 i Abstract In the coastal zone of California, recent efforts to monitor salmon and steelhead populations are insufficient for assessing extinction risk, which by law must be done at the scale of entire ESUs (Evolutionarily Significant Units). Recent efforts tend to be conducted at a smaller scale, and are not useful for assessing risk because 1) they are not co-ordinated with one another, and 2) they are designed for other purposes. To assess risk, it is necessary to make and implement a monitoring plan; and to make a plan, it is useful to have an understanding of where these recent efforts are taking place, what data they are collecting, and why. Therefore, we collected this information. We identified recent monitoring efforts, and collected descriptive information (metadata) for 270 monitoring efforts, where a unit “effort” is defined as a data-collection effort conducted on a particular ESU by a particular organization using a consistent study design for each life stage monitored. As expected, recent monitoring efforts are quite diverse in design and intent. Notably, geographic consistency is quite low—some basins get monitored intensively, whereas for many others data gets collected sporadically (opportunistically) or not at all. Randomized-sampling—necessary for statistical inference—was popular at the reach scale (i.e., habitat units within reaches), but not at the basin scale (i.e., reaches within basins). Study designs tended to fall into two categories—“snapshots” in which a large number of basins are concurrently monitored for 1 or 2 years (usually with low-density, non-random sampling within basins); and “time-series” in which a basin is chosen for logistical reasons or to address a specific management concern, and then monitored over the long term. Overall, the diversity of sampling designs and field methods is likely problematic for ESU-scale risk assessment. We provide a list of the 270 efforts, and maps of where they are being conducted, as a resource for stakeholders interested in recent efforts to monitor salmon and steelhead in the coastal zone. ii Salmonid Monitoring Metadata 1 Part 1: Collection of Metadata Introduction The coastal region of California is inhabited by three anadromous species of Oncorhynchus, and in most parts of the coastal region one or more of these species is currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered
Recommended publications
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses

    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses

    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
  • Watershed Summaries

    Watershed Summaries

    Appendix A: Watershed Summaries Preface California’s watersheds supply water for drinking, recreation, industry, and farming and at the same time provide critical habitat for a wide variety of animal species. Conceptually, a watershed is any sloping surface that sheds water, such as a creek, lake, slough or estuary. In southern California, rapid population growth in watersheds has led to increased conflict between human users of natural resources, dramatic loss of native diversity, and a general decline in the health of ecosystems. California ranks second in the country in the number of listed endangered and threatened aquatic species. This Appendix is a “working” database that can be supplemented in the future. It provides a brief overview of information on the major hydrological units of the South Coast, and draws from the following primary sources: • The California Rivers Assessment (CARA) database (http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara) provides information on large-scale watershed and river basin statistics; • Information on the creeks and watersheds for the ESU of the endangered southern steelhead trout from the National Marine Fisheries Service (http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/SoCalDistrib.htm); • Watershed Plans from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) that provide summaries of existing hydrological units for each subregion of the south coast (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcbs/index.html); • General information on the ecology of the rivers and watersheds of the south coast described in California’s Rivers and Streams: Working
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
  • San Diego Bay CCA Factsheet 2019

    San Diego Bay CCA Factsheet 2019

    CCA #122 San Diego Bay Critical Coastal Area DESCRIPTION This Critical Coastal Area (CCA) watershed drains into San Diego Bay in San Diego County, the third largest sheltered bay on the California coast. Many waterways flow into the bay. The largest is the Sweetwater River in the southern half of the bay, terminating in Sweetwater Marsh. The Otay River also terminates in saltwater marsh at the southern tip of the bay. Other notable creeks include Telegraph Canyon Creek, Paleta Creek, Chollas Creek, Paradise Creek, and Switzer San Diego Bay, Creek. Coronado Side All of these waterways begin in the Cuyamaca Mountains, (Copyright © 2006 Kenneth and flow through densely urbanized areas before entering & Gabrielle Adelman, the bay. There are also numerous flood control and water California Coastal Records supply dams along the larger tributaries. Historically, San Project). Diego Bay was one of the primary outflows of the San Diego For more photos, see the River (along with Mission Bay), but the river’s estuary was California Coastal Records straightened with dredging and levee projects at the end of Project. the 19th century. San Diego Bay is bordered by many large urban areas, including the cities of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, and Coronado. The downtown commercial center of the City of San Diego is along the north side of the bay, and the San Diego International Airport is nearby. Residences in Coronado (such as the Coronado Cays) line the Silver Strand, the strip of sand between the south bay and Coronado Island. The Coronado Bridge roughly bisects the bay, and provides auto access to the peninsula.
  • Abies Bracteata Revised 2011 1 Abies Bracteata (D. Don) Poit

    Abies Bracteata Revised 2011 1 Abies Bracteata (D. Don) Poit

    Lead Forest: Los Padres National Forest Forest Service Endemic: No Abies bracteata (D. Don) Poit. (bristlecone fir) Known Potential Synonym: Abies venusta (Douglas ex Hook.) K. Koch; Pinus bracteata D. Don; Pinus venusta Douglas ex Hook (Tropicos 2011). Table 1. Legal or Protection Status (CNDDB 2011, CNPS 2011, and Other Sources). Federal Listing Status; State Heritage Rank California Rare Other Lists Listing Status Plant Rank None; None G2/S2.3 1B.3 USFS Sensitive Plant description: Abies bracteata (Pinaceae) (Fig. 1) is a perennial monoecious plant with trunks longer than 55 m and less than 1.3 m wide. The branches are more-or-less drooping, and the bark is thin. The twigs are glabrous, and the buds are 1-2.5 cm long, sharp-pointed, and non- resinous. The leaves are less than 6 cm long, are dark green, faintly grooved on their upper surfaces, and have tips that are sharply spiny. Seed cones are less than 9 cm long with stalks that are under15 mm long. The cones have bracts that are spreading, exserted, and that are 1.5–4.5 cm long with a slender spine at the apex. Taxonomy: Abies bracteata is a fir species and a member of the pine family (Pinaceae). Out of the fir species growing in North America (Griffin and Critchfield 1976), Abies bracteata has the smallest range and is the least abundant. Identification: Many features of A. bracteata can be used to distinguish this species from other conifers, including the sharp-tipped needles, thin bark, club-shaped crown, non-resinous buds, and exserted spine tipped bracts (Gymnosperms Database 2010).
  • Prehistoric Fishing on the San Diego Coast

    Prehistoric Fishing on the San Diego Coast

    Prehistoric Fishing on the San Diego Coast Anna C. Noah Abstract In general, archaeologists working in San Diego County have not considered fishing to have been a regionally important prehistoric activity. However, a review of published and gray literature has revealed that fishing has been an important part of the prehistoric economy for at least the last 8000 years. A synthesis of previous work provides new insights with respect to division of labor, social organization, and intensification. It is suggested that future archaeo- logical research in San Diego County be designed to capitalize on the important potential of fish fauna and fishing gear to increase our understanding of prehistoric cultures on the San Diego coast. Introduction In a recent article, Raab et al. remark that “[f]ishing is one of the most extensively investi- gated prehistoric subsistence activities in coastal southern California (1995b:11).” The authors cite ten references supporting their comment. While there is no argument regarding the broad accuracy of their statement, what is remarkable in examining their references is the dearth of published work pertaining to San Diego County, despite the fact that the region embraces an approximately 130-kilometer-long stretch of the southern California coastline. The goals of this paper are to summarize and synthesize the archaeological literature pertain- ing to prehistoric fishing in San Diego County and to consider how the archaeological record pertaining to fish exploitation might contribute to our understanding of regional prehistory. Background The published literature discussing prehistoric fishing in San Diego County is limited prima- rily to work conducted during the early 1960s.
  • Salmonscape: Priorities for Conserving California’S Salmon and Steelhead Diversity

    Salmonscape: Priorities for Conserving California’S Salmon and Steelhead Diversity

    SalmonScape: Priorities for Conserving California’s Salmon and Steelhead Diversity The Nature Conservancy of California August 2011 Version 1.1 SalmonScape – August 2011 SalmonScape: Priorities for Conserving California’s Salmon and Steelhead Diversity August 2011 Version 1.1 Jeanette Howard Kirk Klausmeyer Sally Liu The Nature Conservancy of California 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Cover photographs: Ian Shive (salmon), Bridget Besaw (Shasta Big Springs and juvenile coho salmon), CJ Hudlow (scientists at river mouth) Recommended Citation: Howard, J., K. Klausmeyer, and S. Liu. 2011. SalmonScape: Priorities for Conserving California’s Salmon and Steelhead Diversity. Version 1.1. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA. 34 pages + Tables and Appendix. The Nature Conservancy 2 SalmonScape – August 2011 Table of Contents List of Tables 4 List of Figures 5 Acknowledgements 6 1.0 Introduction 7 Box 1. California’s Anadromous Salmon and Trout Diversity 8 2.0 Developing a SalmonScape: a Portfolio of Priority Landscapes 9 2.1 Framework 9 2.2 Study Area 12 2.3 Methods 12 2.4 Results 15 2.5 How the SalmonScape Compares to Agency Priorities 20 3.0 Uses of Data and Analyses 20 3.1 Priority Places and the Salmon Lifecycle 20 3.2 Stresses 20 3.3 Identifying Bottlenecks 25 4.0 Platform Sites 28 5.0 Conclusions and Future Directions 32 6.0 Literature Cited 33 The Nature Conservancy 3 SalmonScape – August 2011 List of Tables Tables and Appendix Page Table 1: Watersheds that make up top 2, 5, 10 and 20 percent of the study area identified as the 35 priority places to protect the strongest populations and best remaining habitat, restore habitat and populations to create and maintain viable populations.
  • Draft Guidelines for Greening San Diego Program

    Draft Guidelines for Greening San Diego Program

    SAN DIEGO RIVER CONSERVANCY’S GREENING SAN DIEGO PROGRAM DRAFT GRANT PROGRAM GUIDELINES MAY 14, 2020 San Diego River Conservancy 11769 Waterhill Road Lakeside, CA 92040 FOR PUBLIC INPUT I. INTRODUCTION A. The San Diego River Conservancy The San Diego River Conservancy (“Conservancy”) is a state agency, established in 2002, to work specifically within the San Diego River watershed to implement multi- benefit projects that protect and enhance the San Diego River and its connected resources. The San Diego River Conservancy Act, the Conservancy’s enabling legislation, is contained in Division 22.9 of the Public Resources Code. The Act authorizes the Conservancy to undertake projects and award grants to achieve the goals set forth in Division 22.9. The Conservancy works along the entire length of the San Diego River, from its mouth in the City of San Diego at Ocean Beach to its headwaters in the mountains near Julian, California. This area also includes all of the contributing area to the San Diego River (its “watershed”) consisting of several streams, reservoirs, wetlands, estuary and uplands. A map of the Conservancy’s jurisdiction can be viewed at www.sdrc.ca.gov. Senate Bill 1367 (2018), codified as Pub. Resources Code, Division 22.9, Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 32659), authorizes the Conservancy to convene advisory panels for the Otay River, Sweetwater River and Tijuana River and assist in identifying and pursuing grant funding to restore and enhance natural, historical, cultural, educational and recreational resources along the rivers and enhance public access to the rivers watersheds. The Conservancy’s adopted Strategic Plan 2018-2023 http://sdrc.ca.gov/webmaster/arc/docs/StratPlan_update_2018-2023_Final.pdf and the San Diego River Conservancy Act, identifies the Conservancy’s goals and objectives.
  • Hydrology and Water Quality

    Hydrology and Water Quality

    Section 2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality This section describes the hydrology and water quality conditions in the County and the regulatory framework applicable to hydrology and water quality. It also assesses the potential impacts on hydrology and surface and groundwater quality that could result from project implementation, and presents mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant impacts. Water resources can be classified into two categories: (1) surface water, which collects in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs; and (2) groundwater, which resides in subsurface aquifers. This section deals with surface water. Groundwater resources are discussed in Section 2.8, Water Supply and Groundwater. Topics related to floods, levees, or dams, and seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant. 2.5.1 Existing Conditions 2.5.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology Surface water bodies in the County (e.g., estuaries, lagoons, bays, lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and creeks) capture the flow of the region’s water runoff, often combining natural runoff with imported water. Many of these water bodies support natural habitat and recreational areas, and serve as storage reservoirs for the County’s water supply. The San Diego region is divided into two hydrologic basins (the South Coast Basin and the Colorado River Basin) by the northwest-trending Peninsular Range. The County is divided into two hydrologic regions: (1) the San Diego Hydrologic Region, which drains in a westerly direction toward the Pacific Ocean and encompasses most of the County, parts of southwestern Riverside County, and southwestern Orange County; and (2) the Colorado Hydrologic Region, which drains in an easterly direction toward the desert and Colorado River basin.
  • To Sit in the Shade on a Fine Day and Look Upon Verdure Is the Most Perfect Refreshment.” —Jane Austen

    To Sit in the Shade on a Fine Day and Look Upon Verdure Is the Most Perfect Refreshment.” —Jane Austen

    8/19/2011 Draft HISTORIC OVERVIEW OPEN SPACE ELEMENT IN TRODUCTION GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS OPEN SPACE APPENDIXES AREA PLANS “To sit in the shade on a fine day and look upon verdure is the most perfect refreshment.” —Jane Austen Introduction....................................................................................................................................140 Changes.Since.1988....................................................................................................................141 Definitions........................................................................................................................................142 Open.Space.Purposes.................................................................................................................142 SPECIFIC PLANS Open.Space.Types........................................................................................................................143 Easements.(Open.Space,.Conservation,.and.Scenic)...................................................146 Open.Space.Inventory................................................................................................................148 Goal.OS1,.Policies,.and.Strategies..........................................................................................160 TOWN OF WOODSIDE GENERAL PLAN 2012 139 8/19/2011 Draft Introduction The Woodside Planning Area contains significant open space areas important not only to local residents but to Woodside is blessed to have an abundance of open space. the larger
  • National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211

    National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211

    National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211 and the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000 (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical habitat scale hydrologic unit maps: State of is designated to include all river Oregon, 1974 and State of California, reaches accessible to listed coho salm- 1978 which are incorporated by ref- on between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and erence. This incorporation by reference Punta Gorda, California. Critical habi- was approved by the Director of the tat consists of the water, substrate, Federal Register in accordance with 5 and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies and riverine reaches (including off- of the USGS publication and maps may channel habitats) in hydrologic units be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, and counties identified in Table 6 of Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may this part. Accessible reaches are those be inspected at NMFS, Protected Re- within the historical range of the ESU sources Division, 525 NE Oregon that can still be occupied by any life Street—Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232– stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible 2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected Re- sources, 1315 East-West Highway, Sil- reaches are those above specific dams ver Spring, MD 20910, or at the Na- identified in Table 6 of this part or tional Archives and Records Adminis- above longstanding, naturally impass- tration (NARA). For information on able barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in the availability of this material at existence for at least several hundred NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// years).
  • Beneficial Uses of the SFAN Water Bodies

    Beneficial Uses of the SFAN Water Bodies

    Appendix A. Beneficial Uses of the SFAN Water Bodies 67 Beneficial Uses of individual the SFAN water bodies as determined by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (with modifications/additions by the SFAN staff in an April 2003 Memo to the RWQCB) are listed in the table below. Sets of water bodies grouped together with similar shading are located within the same greater watershed. Chalone Creek is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board; however, it is not included in there list of streams. Potential beneficial uses are indicated by “P”, existing beneficial uses are indicated by “E”. Park AGR COLD COMM EST FRSH GWR IND MAR MIGR MUN NAV PROC RARE REC1 REC2 SHEL SPWN WARM WI Tomales Bay PORE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E GOGA Lagunitas Creek GOGA E E E E E E E E E E E Bear Valley Creek PORE E E E P E E E Haggerty Gulch PORE E E E E E E Olema Creek PORE E E E E E E E E E Pacific Ocean PORE E E E E E E E E E E E GOGA Santa Maria Creek PORE E E E P E E E E Coast Creek PORE E P P E E E E Alamere Creek PORE P E E E Crystal Lake PORE P E E E E Arroyo Hondo PORE E P E P E E E Limantour Estero PORE E E E E E E P E E E E Glenbrook Creek PORE E E E E E E P E E E Muddy Hollow PORE E E E E E E P E E E Kehoe Lagoon PORE E E E E Abbott’s Lagoon PORE E E E E E Drakes Estero PORE P E E E E E E E E E East Schooner Ck.