DOCSLIB.ORG

San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7 East Bay Municipal Utility District ......................... 1-9 1.2.3.8 Marin Municipal Water District .............................. 1-9 1.2.3.9 City of Napa ......................................................... 1-9 1.2.3.10 North Bay Watershed Association ...................... 1-10 1.2.3.11 City of Palo Alto .................................................. 1-10 1.2.3.12 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ......... 1-10 1.2.3.13 City of San Jose ................................................. 1-11 1.2.3.14 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative .............................................................. 1-11 1.2.3.15 Santa Clara Valley Water District ....................... 1-12 1.2.3.16 Solano County Water Agency ............................ 1-13 1.2.3.17 Sonoma County Water Agency .......................... 1-13 1.2.3.18 State Coastal Conservancy ................................ 1-13 1.2.3.19 Zone 7 Water Agency ......................................... 1-14 1.2.4 Functional Areas .................................................................. 1-14 1.2.5 Subregions ........................................................................... 1-15 1.2.5.1 North Subregion ................................................. 1-18 1.2.5.2 East Subregion ................................................... 1-18 1.2.5.3 South Subregion ................................................ 1-18 1.2.5.4 West Subregion .................................................. 1-19 1.2.6 Other Stakeholders .............................................................. 1-19 1.2.7 Subcommittees .................................................................... 1-20 1.3 Procedures for IRWMP Development .............................................. 1-21 1.3.1 Public Outreach and Involvement Process ........................... 1-21 1.3.2 Decision-Making Process ..................................................... 1-24 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Governance Table of Contents (cont’d) 1.3.3 Document Review Process .................................................. 1-24 1.4 Balanced Access and Opportunities ................................................ 1-26 1.4.1 Effective Communication with Stakeholders and the Public .................................................................................. 1-26 1.4.2 Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities and Native American Tribes .................................................................. 1-28 1.4.3 Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Efforts and State and Federal Agencies .......................................................... 1-28 1.5 Collaboration Process Used to Establish Plan Objectives ............... 1-29 1.6 Long-term implementation of the Plan ............................................. 1-30 1.7 Interim and Formal Changes to the Plan and Plan Updates ............ 1-31 1.8 Plan Adoption .................................................................................. 1-32 List of Tables Table 1-1: Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) Members ........................................... 1-7 Table 1-2: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Members .............. 1-8 Table 1-3: North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) Agencies .......................................... 1-10 Table 1-4: Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (SCBWMI) Signatories ..... 1-12 List of Figures Figure 1-1: IRWMP Governance Structure ............................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1-2: IRWM Subregions .............................................................................................. 1-17 Figure 1-3: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures ............. 1-30 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Governance Chapter 1: Governance This chapter of the 2019 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP or Plan) Update describes the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG), stakeholders, and the IRWMP governance structure. This chapter also covers the evolution of the structure and function of the governance since 2004 through the current Plan update process. 1.1 Background The IRWMP is an outgrowth of a collaborative process that began in 2004, when regional and local associations, agencies, groups, and organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area signed a Letter of Mutual Understandings (LOMU) to develop an IRWMP for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. To facilitate development of the 2006 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (2006 Plan), the participants agreed to organize into four Functional Areas (FA): ● Water Supply & Water Quality, ● Wastewater & Recycled Water, ● Flood Protection & Stormwater Management, and ● Watershed Management & Habitat Protection and Restoration. Representatives from agencies that represented the FAs formed a Technical Coordinating Committee which served as the original governing body and provided oversight for the IRWMP process. In January 2007, following completion of 2006 Plan, this group became known as the San Francisco Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC). During the development of the Region Acceptance Process (RAP) in 2009, the CC developed an additional organizational structure based on demographic and geographic divisions in order to address the challenges of integrated management at the scale of the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Region (Bay Area Region or Region). Four Subregions were defined: East, West, South, and North. The Subregions have subsequently become the focal points for outreach and project solicitation and integration in the IRWMP. The CC still includes representatives from the FAs and the FAs continue to address IRWM issues as needed. 1.2 Governance Team and Structure This section describes roles and responsibilities of the IRWMP participants. As Figure 1 illustrates, regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations, environmental groups, business groups, the public and other interested parties participated in the development of the IRWMP, serving in an advisory role at the CC and Subregion levels. The participants and their roles are described in the following sections. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-1 Governance Figure 1-1: IRWMP Governance Structure 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee The CC is the “RWMG” for the IRWMP. The role of the CC is to provide leadership, oversight and administrative support for the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM process. The CC is composed of representatives from Bay Area water supply agencies, wastewater agencies, flood control agencies, ecosystem management and restoration agencies, regulatory agencies, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), and members of the public. Any interested person may participate on the CC. The CC is responsible, directly or through participating agencies, for decision-making and actions including, but not limited to, establishing IRWMP goals and objectives, prioritizing projects, identifying financing for CC and IRWMP activities, implementing Plan activities, making future revisions to the IRWMP, hiring and managing consultants, coordinating, authorizing and/or approving grant proposals and managing funding agreements. The CC has no independent fiscal responsibility or capability except via the participating organizations. Legal actions such as contracting and submitting grant funding applications are carried out by individual participating agencies on behalf of the CC, and cost sharing agreements are developed on a case-by-case basis as necessary. Costs associated with administrative functions of the CC, IRWMP development, and Plan implementation are covered in a variety of ways, including grants, multi-agency contributions through FA associations, funds from individual project proponents, and in-kind contributions of staff time from participating entities. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-2
Recommended publications
  • Planning and Natural Resources Committee R-19

    Planning and Natural Resources Committee R-19

    PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE R-19-140 October 22, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan to Expand Conservation Grazing into the South Pasture GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the Board of Directors to adopt an addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan as an amendment to the Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan that adds the south pasture as part of the conservation grazing area on the property. SUMMARY The General Manager recommends adoption of an addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch (Mindego) Grazing Management Plan (Grazing Plan) (Attachment 1) to expand the conservation grazing area within Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Russian Ridge). The addendum identifies the existing resources and current uses in the proposed south pasture expansion area, and provides recommendations for future improvements, management, and monitoring at the site. The recommendations include: installation of additional water infrastructure, updates to fencing, management of brush encroachment into grasslands, and monitoring of resource management activities. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff and the current grazing tenant have been working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to secure cost-sharing support for the anticipated improvements. Implementation of the recommended infrastructure improvements is estimated to cost $119,341, of which approximately $85,000 is projected to be the District’s share with the remainder funded by the NRCS. Recommended improvements would span four years with work anticipated to begin in July 2020. If approved, the District’s share would be allocated across the next four fiscal years and requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan development process.
  • The Fault Line Threatening Dams

    The Fault Line Threatening Dams

    The Fault Line Threatening Dams The Fault Line Threatening Dams Deficient structures, earthquake risks raise possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding By Jim Carlton June 24, 2017 FREMONT, Calif.-The coastal mountains that frame this working-class city next to San Francisco Bay harbor a hidden menace: a reservoir 10 miles away that sits next to an active earthquake fault, which experts say could cause a dam break and flood thousands of homes. The potential threat is so severe, the owner of the Calaveras Reservoir decided to build a replacement dam. But seven years after that work began, the dam is unfinished and isn't expected to be complete until 2019 -- four years behind schedule. The issues hampering the Calaveras Reservoir project show how difficult it can be to repair or replace an old dam, which is of growing concern nationally. An estimated 27,380 dams, or 30% of the 90,580 listed in the latest 2016 National Inventory of Dams, are rated as posing a high or significant hazard. Of those, more than 2,170 are considered deficient and in need of upgrading, according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The inventory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't break out which ones are deficient. But funding and inspection staffing are considered inadequate, the civil engineers' report said. An estimated $64 billion is needed to upgrade those dams, including $22 billion for those posing the highest hazard, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, a nonprofit group in Lexington, Ky. "It's a huge problem with limited resources," said Ivan Wong, a consulting seismologist from Walnut Creek, Calif., who works on dam projects nationally.
  • Marin Islands NWR Sport Fishing Plan

    Marin Islands NWR Sport Fishing Plan

    Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 3 SPORT FISHING PLAN 3 1. Introduction 3 2. Statement of Objectives 4 3. Description of the Fishing Program 5 A. Area to be Opened to Fishing 5 B. Species to be Taken, Fishing periods, Fishing Access 5 C. Fishing Permit Requirements 7 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State 7 E. Law Enforcement 7 F. Funding and Staffing Requirements 8 4. Conduct of the Fishing Program 8 A. Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures (if applicable) 8 B. Refuge-Spec if ic Fishing Regulat ions 8 C. Relevant State Regulations 8 D. Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Sport Fishing 8 5. Public Engagement 9 A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program 9 B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program 9 C. How Anglers Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations 9 6. Compatibility Determination 9 7. Literature Cited 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed Sport Fishing Area Fishing…………………………………6 Marin Islands NWR Fishing Plan Page 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SPORT FISHING PLAN 1. Introduction National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
  • Central Coast

    Central Coast

    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf

    Goga Wrfr.Pdf

    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
  • San Mateo County BBE Final Report-2016.11.2

    San Mateo County BBE Final Report-2016.11.2

    Assessment and Management Prioritization Regime for the Bar-built Estuaries of San Mateo County Summary Report San Pedro Creek Prepared for: United States Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Area Coastal Program by: Central Coast Wetlands Group Moss Landing Marine Labs 8272 Moss Landing Rd. Moss Landing, CA 95039 November 2016 Summary Report: Bar-Built Estuaries of San Mateo County TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Background and Need .................................................................................................................................... 3 What are BBEs and Why are they Important ............................................................................................................ 3 BBE are the most dominant estuarine resource on the San Mateo County coastline .............................................. 4 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methods .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................................................
  • Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board Policy Committee Meeting

    Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board Policy Committee Meeting

    May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY BOARD POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING May 10, 2019 Correspondence and media coverage of interest between April 15 and May 9, 2019 Correspondence Date: May 3, 2019 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Subject: Press Release: SFPUC Celebrates Completion of Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Date: April 29, 2019 From: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Subject Press Advisory: Governor Newsom Directs State Agencies to Prepare Water Resilience Portfolio for California Media Coverage Water Supply: Date: May 6, 2019 Source: Sacramento Bee Article: To prevent water shortages, California must embrace desalination Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Sierra snowpack is 188 percent of normal Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: Final Phillips Survey of 2019 Finds Healthy Late-Spring Snowpack Water Infrastructure: Date: May 5, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Editorial: Governor sets welcome new course on Delta water issues Date: May 4, 2019 Source: Grist Article: The town that extended ‘smart growth’ to its water Date: May 2, 2019 Source: SF Gate Article: California governor makes big change to giant water project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Newsom officially kills Jerry Brown’s Delta Twin Tunnels project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: State Withdraws WaterFix Approvals, Initiates Planning and Permitting for a Smaller Single Tunnel May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G Water Infrastructure, cont’d.: Date: May
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network

    Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network

    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
  • Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021

    Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021

    Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021 Reasonable care is given in gathering, compiling and furnishing the information contained herein which is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but the Planroom is not responsible or liable for errors, omissions or inaccuracies. Plan# Name Bid Date & Time OPR# Location Estimate Project Type Monday, August 16, 2021 OUTREACH MEETING (VIRTUAL) EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE (EVC) STUDENT SERVICES Addenda: 0 COMPLEX (REQUEST FOR SUB BIDS) SC 8/16/21 10:00 AM 21-02526 San Jose School ONLINE Plan Issuer: XL Construction 408-240-6000 408-240-6001 THIS IS A VIRTUAL OUTREACH MEETING. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. SEE FLYER FOR DETAILS. The 74,000 sf Student Services Complex at Evergreen Valley College is part of the San Jose Evergreen Community College District's Measure X Bond Program. This is a new ground-up two -story complex including collaboration spaces, offices, storage, restrooms and supporting facilities. All subcontractors must be prequalified with XL Construction to bid the project. Please email [email protected] for a prequalification application link, and [email protected] if you are an Under Utilized Business Enterprise (SBE, WBE, MBE, VBE...). REFINISHING GYM AND STAGE FLOORS AT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND Addenda: 0 8/16/21 12:00 PM 21-02463 Fremont State-Federal Plan Issuer: California Department of Education - Personnel Service Division 916-319-0800 000-000-0000 Contract #: BF210152 The Contractor shall provide all labor, equipment and materials necessary for preparing and refinishing the stage and gym floors, twice a year, at the California School for the Blind (CSB), located at 500 Walnut Avenue, Fremont.
  • 2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025

    2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025

    2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025 7. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Table of Contents page page BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE.................................................. 7-1 Tables SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................ 7-1 Table 7-1 Potential Wildlife Species of Concern in the RESOURCE CONSERVATION ..................................................... 7-2 Planning Area ........................................................... 7-3 Animal Life.......................................................................... 7-2 Table 7-2 Potential Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Plants Plant Life............................................................................. 7-4 in the Planning Area .................................................. 7-6 Soil Resources ..................................................................... 7-9 Table 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods and Structures ..................... 7-15 Sand and Gravel............................................................... 7-10 Cultural Resources............................................................. 7-11 Figures OPEN SPACE LANDS............................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-1 Generalized Land Cover, 2005 .................................. 7-5 Recreational Open Space................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-2 Aggregate Resources and Reclamation ...................... 7-12 Water Management, Habitat, and Recreation...................... 7-24 Figure 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods
  • Contra Costa County

    Contra Costa County

    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 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Marsh Creek Watershed Marsh Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the eastern slopes of Mt. Diablo to Suisun Bay in the northern San Francisco Estuary. Its watershed consists of about 100 square miles. The headwaters of Marsh Creek consist of numerous small, intermittent and perennial tributaries within the Black Hills. The creek drains to the northwest before abruptly turning east near Marsh Creek Springs. From Marsh Creek Springs, Marsh Creek flows in an easterly direction entering Marsh Creek Reservoir, constructed in the 1960s. The creek is largely channelized in the lower watershed, and includes a drop structure near the city of Brentwood that appears to be a complete passage barrier. Marsh Creek enters the Big Break area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta northeast of the city of Oakley. Marsh Creek No salmonids were observed by DFG during an April 1942 visual survey of Marsh Creek at two locations: 0.25 miles upstream from the mouth in a tidal reach, and in close proximity to a bridge four miles east of Byron (Curtis 1942).