NMFS California Anadromous Fish Distributions
California Coastal Salmon and Steelhead
Current Stream Habitat Distribution Table
Table to be used with DeLorme Topo Quads, Bibliography, and Contacts & Expertise list (Streams listed from north to south)
Stream 1/Tributary
(RM=river mile) Species
/ Run
Upper Limit
of Run 2
(RM=river mile)
Sources
References /
Pers. comm.
Comments Survey
Dates 3
Chinook Salmon - California Coastal ESUCoho Salmon - Central California Coast ESUSteelhead - Northern California Coast Steelhead ESUMendocino County streamsWhale Gulch24N 19W, Sec. 4
SHCOHRT
RM-0.3RM-?RM-?
JonesJonesBrown and Moyle
Personal observations: the barrier is a falls some 25 feet high. Electrofishing: 2 stations, one below the barrier and one above, foundjuvenile SH below and RT above in 1984 .Report: COH reported in this stream; “Status of Coho Salmon inCalifornia”, 1991 196819841991
Low Gap Creek24N, 19W, Sec. 9
None Barrier @ RM-0 Jones Personal observations: barrier near confluence with the ocean. 1984 Flat Rock Creek24Nm 19W, Sec. 9
None Barrier @ RM-0 Jones Personal observations: there is a barrier near the confluence with the ocean.
1984
Bear Harbor Creek24N, 19W, Sec. 26
SH Mainstem-RM0.4
NF- RM-0.1MF- RM-0.7SF- 0.06
Ginger & Jones Jones
Personal observations: there is a barrier in the upper Middle Fork 8 feetHigh.Electrofished: survey found juvenile SH present. 19791984
Stream 1/Tributary
(RM=river mile) Species
/ Run
Upper Limit
of Run 2
(RM=river mile)
Sources
References /
Pers. comm.
Comments Survey
Dates 3
Mill Creek T12N, R13W, Sec. 7
SH RM-5.5 Holman
MaahsMaillaird
Survey: juvenile SH were present.Carcass survey, 2 adult SH were seen.Personal observations: the land owner revealed the presence of SH 5.5miles upstream. 196819961999
Redwood Creek T12N, R13W, Sec. 6
SH RM-1.5 Holman Survey: juvenile SH were present but the stream was considered of poor value.
1968
Pardaloe Creek T12N, R13W, Sec. 7
SH RM-2.3 Jones
JonesMaahs
Personal observation: saw juvenile SH in this stream.Electrofished: found only juvenile SH.Carcass survey: two adult SH were seen. 197519941996
Point Arena CreekT12N, R17W, Sec.14
SH RM-1.7 Jones Personal observations: including electrofishing, found juvenile SH in the area of stream within the town of Point Arena.
1975
Moat CreekT12N, R16W, Sec.30
none RM-? Jones Electrofished: found no fish. 1986
Ross CreekT12N, R16W, Sec.29
? RM-? A stream survey is needed.
Galloway CreekT12N, R16W, Sec.29
none RM-? Nicol and Litwin Survey: no fish were observed. Found was a “massive” log jam considered to be a “complete barrier” at the mouth of the stream. Thisjam was reported to be 150 feet long, 100 feet wide and 10 feet high. 1980
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting May 28, 2024: Public comment on the Coastal Development Permit #2023-01: 135/165 Main Street
Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 9:35:29 AM
Public comment on the Wildflower project. I have let Tom White know the project has been continued to June 25.
From: Tom White <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 9:14 AM
To: Jeana Gevas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting May 28, 2024: Public comment on the Coastal Development Permit #2023-01: 135/165 Main Street
Dear City Council Members,
In the mid-1980’s the Sea Shell Inn offered a low-cost place to stay in Point Arena while my home was under construction. Sadly, the motel fell into disrepair a decade later and has been a blight on the town for over 20 years. The derelict buildings are the first thing visitors would see when entering town from the south.
While I agree with others' comments about mitigating impact from the project on Point Arena Creek, in my view it would be more useful for the Arena Cove Stewards to focus on restoration of the sections of the creek between the cove/beach and Highway 1 as a more important priority for reestablishing the creek as an improved habitat for steelhead migrations.
I fully support the: Staff’s
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Hold a hearing, receive public testimony, deliberate and adopt:
1. RESOLUTION (No. PC -2002 and ) OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POINT ARENA,
Resolution No. - 2024: CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WILDFLOWER WEST PROJECT (SCH: 2024040981); ADOPTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS; AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
And
STAFF REPORT CDP# 2023-01, Use Permit# 2024-01 (Hansen) June 25, 2024 CC-1
2. RESOLUTION OF THE POINT ARENA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A USE PERMIT,
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND LOT LINE ADJUSTEMENT FOR THE WILDFLOWER EAST PROJECT LOCATED AT 135 AND 165 MAIN STREET.
Tom White
760 Bluff Top Road
PO Box 749
Point Arena, CA 95468
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: May 28 Hansen Project
Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 4:39:49 PM
Looks like he only sent to the city planner email…
From: Eric Dahlhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 3:49 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; City of Point Arena Admin <[email protected]>; Point Arena Planner <[email protected]>
Subject: May 28 Hansen Project
May 28, 2024
Hansen Project CDP 2021-04 et al
Dear Council,
I submitted written comments on May 6th. Some of my concerns were addressed by the supplemental Biological study and updated Mitigated Neg Dec. I am very appreciative.
However, the issue with the shipping container sitting on Mill St. for the past year has not been addressed or acknowledged.
As stated in my previous comments, the container is clearly part of this project, and CEQA does not allow segmenting a project. The residents of Mill St. deserve to know how many more there will be, and for how long.
This is a public street, not private property. There has to be some reasonable limit to this annoyance.
An Encroachment Permit should be included with this CDP application, and it should have an actual description of what is allowed, how many containers and how long they will be there. My opinion is that it has been there long enough and should be removed now.
Thanks for listening,
Eric Dahlhoff
1 [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 9:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Concerns Wildflower Project
Attachments: Hotel Issues.rtf
We received the following public comment regarding the Wildflower East project.
Dear City council,
I look forward to the clean-up and remodeling of the East side of the Wildflower Project.
This leƩer is to voice my concerns about the building project on 135 and 165
Main St and Mill St.
My 4 main areas of concern are :
1. Drainage and Pollutants to creek
2. Light polluƟon
3. What is sewer capacity
4. Where is off site parking for restaurant?
1. Where is the engineered drainage? This plan involves a considerable amount off asphalt and roofing which shed a significant quanƟty of water.
Where will it go? Any drainage from the parking lot will have toxins form cars and asphalt residue. Point Arena Creek is a viable fish habitat along with turtles and red legged frogs. Furthermore it drains into our Point Arena Cove where surfers and other recreaƟonal users enter the waters.
2. Light polluƟon. Despite promises to keep lights low and pointed to the ground on the West side of Main St., the lighƟng there is too bright. We are a small rural town and want to preserve a country feel. Overuse of lighƟng blocks the visibility of stars at night and creates an impediment to sleep.
3. Is it a wise decision to add 50 to 100 individuals to our over taxed sewer system? UnƟl the sewer system is rebuilt I don't believe its conscionable for the city to add to the overloaded system. Very expensive accidents have and will happen. All residents downhill form the property will be at risk for blockages and sewer flooding. Who will pay? You can't expect homeowners to foot the bill for more development.
4. Parking. I can only count half of the required 58 parking spaces. There are 2 2 bedroom apartments and 2 1 bedroom apartments in the plan with only
3 designated spaces. Shouldn't 5 or 6 spaces be required? The main restaurant at the south end of the property on Main St. says 30 spaces are needed and 15 of those are assumed to be hotel patrons with designated parking spaces. Where will delivery trucks park? The other 15 parking spaces are said to be off site? Where?? The on street parking on Main St. is largely used by the Japanese Restaurant owned by Jeff which never had any designated parking assigned. This has already created a dangerous intersecƟon at 2 Iversen Ave. and Main St. Visibility is difficult looking up the street especially when cars and trucks are parked obstrucƟng the view of oncoming traffic. Traffic is already moving too fast at the boƩom of the hill. Cars fly around the corner onto Iversen Ave far too fast.
Pedestrians are really at risk on the corner where there is no sidewalk or protecƟon from cars speeding around the corner. I was nearly hit days ago when a speeding car pulled over to avoid the car on his tail. To add more vehicles to this situaƟon is a very dangerous thing. Perhaps he should add parking on the lot behind the hotel on Mill St.
Thank you,
Kim Swenson
20 Iversen Ave
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Diana Swenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2024 9:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Wildflower Project
This leƩer is in response to East Wildflower project plans (ie Case #CDP2021-04 LLA2021-02 UP2024-) at 135 and 165 Main St.
Please forward this to the city planner and city council members as I am unable to find those contacts on the City website.
1 [email protected]
From: Scott Schnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 8:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Public Hearing June 25, 2024 Wild Flower 2
This is one of the most poorly managed projects I have seen in my 30 years of construction management experience. The City of Point Arena and the owner of the property have violated many State of California requirements for construction projects. The amount of construction waste and contamination that has flowed into Arena Creek for the past 7 to 8 years is just unacceptable.
Now you are back dating permit applications to get yourself in compliance with the standards you are required to comply with. It amazes me that you show pictures of the property of what it looked like 7 or 8 years ago in your application. You have all most completely remodeled 2 of the buildings, demolished one of the buildings and cut down many trees. Why would you not tell the truth about what you have been doing?
There has be a complete disregard for any hazardous waste or environmental consequences of this project. I do not believe that the owner has the best interest of our community in mind when he is involved in the construction work as he seems not to care at all about the environmental issues.
Thank you,
Scott Schnell