DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology and Ground Water in the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley Areas Sonoma County California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology and Ground Water in the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley Areas Sonoma County California Geology and Ground Water in the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley Areas Sonoma County California By G. T. CARDWELL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1427 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1958 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___ ___________________________-_---_-____-_--._-_-_----- 1 Introduction.________________________-__-__-______-_----___-__--__ 3 Location of the area--_____--______--_---------------_--------- 3 Purpose a.nd scope of the investigation.__________________________ 5 Acknowledgments ____________________________--_--___---__-_-- 6 Previous work related to water resources,________________________ 6 Well-numbering system___________________________-_...._.-____-.-_ 6 Geography__ ________________-_____,.____-___--___--__--_--------- 7 Physical features______________________________________________ 7 Topography. _.______.____________________-___-_.-_----__-_ 7 Drainage.____________-_____________---_-_---_-__---___-_- 9 Climate.. ._...._._-_._.._.__._..__.___. :.__. 12 General features_____-______--________________-_---__---_ 12 Precipitation__ _ _________________________________________ 12 Culture._____________________________________________________ 17 History of water use.______.___________-_-_______-________---------- 18 Geology_______________________________ 23 Previous work_______________________________________________ 23 Description and general water-bearing character of the rocks______-_ 23 General features_--__-_--__-__--__________-------_--------- 23 Consolidated rocks of Jurassic and Cretaceous (?) age____------- 29 Franciscan group-------------------------------------- 29 Knoxville formation.__________________________________ 31 Novato conglomerate._________________________________ 31 Sedimentary and volcanic rocks of Tertiary age_______________ 325 Tolay volcanics of Morse and Bailey (1935) _______________ 32 Petaluma formation____________________________________ 32 Sonoma volcanics____________________________________ 35 Tertiary and Quaternary deposits. ___.________________________ 38 Merced formation_____________________________________ 38 Glen Ellen formation_________________________________ 38 Pleistocene and Recent deposits.____________________________ 54 Older alluvium and terrace deposits.________---_-_-__-__. 54 Younger alluvium (Recent)_____________________________ 55 Geologic structure-____________________________________________ 57 Folds,___________-_-_____--____________-_-____-_-__-_ 57 Faults________--___-___-_-____--____---_-________.__ 58 Geologic history___________________-___________________________ 59 Mesozoic era____________________________________________ 59 Cenozoic era______________________________________________ 59 Pre-Pliocene events.___________________________________ 59 Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs_ _:______________________ 60 in IV CONTENTS CONTENTS Page Literature cited. 132 Tables of basic data_______________________________________________ 135 Description of wells_________________________________________ 135 Periodic water-level measurements_____________________________ 137 Analyses of water____________________________________________ 137 Drillers'logs__________.._._____. __________________ 139 ______-_-________--____--_-_---____-_------_--____-------- 271 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates 1-5 are in pocket] PLATE 1. Geologic map of the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley areas, showing location of wells. 2. Water-level contour map of the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley areas. 3. Geologic sections across the middle of Santa Rosa Valley. 4. Geologic sections across the north end of Santa Rosa Valley. 5. Geologic section across the southern end of Cotati Plain. Page 6. Nearly vertical beds of basaltic tuff of the Sonoma formation. _ 40 7. Fossiliferous sandstone of the Merced formation__________ 41 8. A, Lenticular beds of loose, poorly sorted gravel of the Glen * Ellen formation; B, conglomerate and compact sandy clay of the Glen Ellen formation._________________________ 48 FIGURE 1. Index map showing location of the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley areas_________________________________________ 4 2. Increase in irrigation and gross pumpage, 1945-49- _________ 21 3. Map showing ground-water storage units and pumpage areas _ _ 22 4. Geologic section across Petaluma Valley near Petaluma.____ 25 5. Geologic sections across Kenwood Valley and the Glen Ellen area._____________________________________________ 28 6. Hydrographs showing fluctuations of water levels, and graph showing monthly rainfall____________________________ 74 7. Hydrographs showing fluctuations of water levels in paired shallow and deep wells____-_______--__--__-___________ 75 8. Hydrographs showing fluctuations of water level in wells tapping the Merced formation_________________________ 76 9. Hydrographs of wells at mouth of Bennett Valley._________ 77 10. Hydrographs of wells tapping the principal water bodies in Rincon and Kenwood Valleys____-_-_-_---____-________ 78 11. Diagram showing chemical character of the ground water in the Santa Rosa Valley_--_----______________________ 94 12. Graphical representation of chemical analyses of water from wells tapping the principal water-bearing formations______ 95 13. Relation of specific conductance to sum of ionized constituents in the ground waters in Santa Rosa Valley_____________ 99 VI CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS Continued Page FIGURE 14. Hydrographs showing fluctuations of water levels of wells in Petaluma Valley, and graph showing monthly rainfall at Petaluma, 1949-54-._______________________ 115 15. Diagram showing the chemical character of the ground water in the Petaluma Valley area___---_----__-_-_-----_---- 115 16. Variation of chemical constituents in water with increasing depth in the principal water body in Petaluma Valley_____ 124 17. Changes in quality of water in the principal water body in Petaluma Valley ___________._________________ 126 18. Relation of specific conductance to sum of ionized constituents in ground water?) in Petaluma Valley______________-___-- 129 TABLES Page TABLE 1. Monthly and yearly precipitation, in inches, at Santa Rosa____ 12 2. Annual rainfall, in inches, at five stations in the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley areas_______-_____--_---_---_----- 15 3. Data for additional precipitation stations in and near the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley areas--__-___-_--_--_-------- 16 4. Distribution, in 1950, and percent increase in population, 1940-50, in Sonoma County and the Santa Rosa and Peta­ luma Valley areas___-_------___----__----_-_---------- 17 5. Areal distribution of irrigation wells and development of irriga­ tion by periods________-____-__-_______-__----------- 20 6. Stratigraphic units distinguished in the Santa Rosa and Peta­ luma Valley areas----_-__----__------------------_--_- 26 7. Ground-water pumpage, in acre-feet, in the Santa Rosa Valley area, 1945-49__________________-__-__ - 87 8. Duty of water factors in the Santa Rosa Valley area.________ 88 9. Summary of chemical character of water from the principal water-bearing formations in the Santa Rosa Valley area____ 93 10. Categories used for classification of materials described by drillers, and estimates by category, of specific yield in the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley areas________-_-_____-- 104 11. Average estimated specific yield of ground-water storage units in the Santa Rosa Valley area______________-_---__---_- 104 12. Estimated gross ground-water storage capacity, in acre-feet, in the Santa Rosa Valley area-_____-___---__---__------ 112 13. Comparison of water levels in closely spaced wells of different depth in the principal water body.---------------------- 106 14. Ground-water pumpage, in acre-feet, in the Petaluma Valley area, 1945-49_____________________________ 119 15. Chemical analyses of surface waters in the Petaluma Valley area___--____--________________-----_---_------------ 130 16. Estimated gross ground-water storage capacity, in acre-feet, in the Petaluma Valley area__-__-__-__----_---_-_------ 131 17. Description of water wells in the Santa Rosa Valley area- _ _ _ _ _ 140 CONTENTS VII TABLES Continued Page TABLE 18. Description of representative developed springs in the Santa Rosa Valley area_____-._-____-_-_-______-__-___________ 206 19. Periodic water-level measurements in wells in the Santa Rosa Valley area.______________________-___ 207 20. Chemical analyses of water from wells in the Santa Rosa Valley area_________________________________ 220 21. Partial chemical analyses of water from wells and springs in the Santa Rosa Valley area____-_-___-_--__.._-_-----------_ 222 22. Drillers'logs of wells in the Santa Rosa Valley area.________ 223 23. Description of water wells in the Petaluma Valley area____ 250 24. Periodic water-level measurements in wells in Petaluma Valley. 264 25. Chemical analyses of water from wells in Petaluma Valley-_-_ 261 26. Partial chemical analyses of water from wells in Petaluma Valley.._____________.________________ 266 27. Drillers'logs of water wells in the Petaluma Valley area..____ 267 GEOLOGY AND GROUND WATER IN THE SANTA ROSA AND PETALUMA VALLEY AREAS, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BY G. T. CARD WELL ABSTRACT Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valleys are the westernmost of the several small valleys immediately north of San Francisco Bay, California.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Final Report
    Draft Saddle Mountain Open Space Preserve Management Plan Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District 747 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Prepared by: Prunuske Chatham, Inc. 400 Morris St., Suite G Sebastopol, CA 95472 March 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District March 2019 Saddle Mountain Open Space Preserve Management Plan Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Page 1 Project Information ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Requirements .................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Public and Agency Review ................................................................................................. 3 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Project Location and Setting ......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 4
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Ludwigia Control in the Laguna De Santa Rosa, California
    Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California California Invasive Plant Council 15th Annual Symposium Thomas J. McNabb, Clean Lakes, Inc. Julian Meisler, Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California CDFA Project Site SCWA Project Site Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California The Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation (Laguna Foundation) contracted with Clean Lakes, Inc. to carry out Year One of a three-year control effort aimed at reducing the area and density of the non-native invasive weed Ludwigia hexapetala within selected areas of the Laguna de Santa Rosa The infestation harbors mosquito vectors of West Nile Virus (WNV) that poses a health threat to humans and wildlife; out-competes native wetland species, severely degrading habitat; and is believed to impair both the water quality and the flood-control functions of the Laguna. On April 28, 2005 the California Department of Fish and Game, Central Coast Region, and the Sonoma County Water Agency, each filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) and an Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan (APAP) to comply with the terms of the General National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for the Discharge of Aquatic Pesticides for Aquatic Weed Control (General Permit) On July 1, 2005, the California Department of Fish and Game filed form FG 880, Application No. 05-361, Pesticide Use Recommendation for the work to be performed on the Department of Fish and Game property (Site II). Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California On July 14, 2005, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, issued project approvals via a letter of “Applicability of General NPDES Permit for the Discharge of Aquatic Pesticides for Aquatic Weed Control in Waters of the United States and a Notice of Coverage, Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Sonoma County” to the Sonoma County Water Agency, Ludwigia Control Project (WDID No.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Project Appraisal of Santa Rosa Creek Restoration ______
    University of California, Berkeley LDARCH 227 : River and Stream Restoration __________________________________________________________________________ Post-Project Appraisal of Santa Rosa Creek Restoration __________________________________________________________________________ Final Draft Authors: Charlie Yue Elizabeth Hurley Elyssa Lawrence Zhiyao Shu Abstract: The purpose of this project is to assess the success of past Santa Rosa Creek restorations as a form of post-restoration monitoring of previous projects. Core objectives of this creek restoration applied to the reach of the Santa Rosa Creek ranging from E Street to Pierson Street were analyzed to the extent possible with available resources. The overarching objectives were to improve and restore habitat, remediate and maintain a healthy creek ecosystem, and bolster community involvement within this specified reach. To measure the success of these objectives, the team gathered documentation of flora and fauna, pebble counts, and interviews with members of the community. Reported flora showed the creek was composed of about 79% of the original planted species, and of the total observed species, 16% were non-native and 84% were native. Interviews with the community indicated that the creek is used frequently for recreational purposes and that the community is concerned with litter and crime along the creek. With the results from this study, it was determined that the majority of past projects were successful though improvements could be made to maintain healthier, safer, and cleaner paths along the river. Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 3 History of the Santa Rosa Watershed and Creek 3 Santa Rosa Citywide Master Plan and Post-restoration Projects 4 Purpose of This Study 6 Chapter 2. Methods 8 Flora and Fauna Identification 8 Stream Composition 8 Community Interaction 9 GIS data Application 11 Chapter 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Sonoma County Stormwater Resources Plan Evaluation Process
    Appendix A List of Stakeholders Engaged APPENDIX A List of Stakeholders Engaged Specific audiences engaged in the planning process are identified below. These audiences include: cities, government officials, landowners, public land managers, locally regulated commercial, agricultural and industrial stakeholders, non-governmental organizations, mosquito and vector control districts and the general public. TABLE 1 LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGED Organization Type Watershed 1st District Supervisor Government Sonoma 5th District Supervisor Government Petaluma City of Petaluma Government Petaluma City of Sonoma Government Sonoma Daily Acts Non-Governmental Petaluma Friends of the Petaluma River Non-Governmental Petaluma Zone 2A Petaluma River Watershed- Flood Control Government Petaluma Advisory Committee Zone 3A Valley of the Moon - Flood Control Advisory Government Sonoma Committee Marin Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Special District Both Sonoma Ecology Center Non-Governmental Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Government Both Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Government Both Space District Sonoma Land Trust Non-Governmental Both Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works Government Both Valley of the Moon Water District Government Sonoma Sonoma Resource Conservation District Special District Both Sonoma County Permit Sonoma Government Both Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Non-Governmental N/A California State Parks Government Both California State Water Resources Control Board Government N/A Southern Sonoma
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORICAL CHANGES in CHANNEL ALIGNMENT Along Lower Laguna De Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek
    HISTORICAL CHANGES IN CHANNEL ALIGNMENT along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek PREPARED FOR SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY JUNE 2014 Prepared by: Sean Baumgarten1 Erin Beller1 Robin Grossinger1 Chuck Striplen1 Contributors: Hattie Brown2 Scott Dusterhoff1 Micha Salomon1 Design: Ruth Askevold1 1 San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation San Francisco Estuary Institute Publication #715 Suggested Citation: Baumgarten S, EE Beller, RM Grossinger, CS Striplen, H Brown, S Dusterhoff, M Salomon, RA Askevold. 2014. Historical Changes in Channel Alignment along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek. SFEI Publication #715, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. Report and GIS layers are available on SFEI’s website, at http://www.sfei.org/ MarkWestHE Permissions rights for images used in this publication have been specifically acquired for one-time use in this publication only. Further use or reproduction is prohibited without express written permission from the responsible source institution. For permissions and reproductions inquiries, please contact the responsible source institution directly. CONTENTS 1. Introduction .....................................................................................1 a. Environmental Setting..........................................................................2 b. Study Area ................................................................................................2 2. Methods ............................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Mitigation Plan
    Flood Mitigation Plan (June 2008) CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN ........................................................ 2 SECTION I - PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................... 17 Part 1 - Process Organization .................................................................................................................................... 17 Planning Process Documentation ............................................................................................................................. 17 Jurisdictional Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Process Description ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Part 2 - Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Flood Mitigation Planning Committee .................................................................................................................... 22 Public Participation Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 48 Results and Recommendations from Community & Stakeholders ........................................................................ 48
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in Stratigraphic Nomenclature by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1973
    Changes in Stratigraphic Nomenclature by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1973 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1395-A NOV1419/5 5 81 Changes in Stratigraphic Nomenclature by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1973 By GEORGE V. COHEE and WILNA R. WRIGHT CONTRIBUTIONS TO STRATIGRAPHY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1395-A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1975 66 01-141-00 oM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Cohee, George Vincent, 1907 Changes in stratigraphic nomenclatures by the U. S. Geological Survey, 1973. (Contributions to stratigraphy) (Geological Survey bulletin; 1395-A) Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1395-A 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Nomenclature United States. I. Wright, Wilna B., joint author. II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Bulletin; 1395-A. QE75.B9 no. 1395-A [QE645] 557.3'08s 74-31466 [551.7'001'4] For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, B.C. 20402 Price 95 cents (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-02593 CONTENTS Page Listing of nomenclatural changes ______ _ Al Beulah Limestone and Hardscrabble Limestone (Mississippian) of Colorado abandoned, by Glenn R. Scott _________________ 48 New and revised stratigraphic names in the western Sacramento Valley, Calif., by John D. Sims and Andre M. Sarna-Wojcicki __ 50 Proposal of the name Orangeburg Group for outcropping beds of Eocene age in Orangeburg County and vicinity, South Carolina, by George E. Siple and William K. Pooser _________________ 55 Abandonment of the term Beattyville Shale Member (of the Lee Formation), by Gordon W.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.12 Paleontological Resources
    3.12 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.12 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.12.1 Definitions Paleontological resources—or fossils—are the remains of ancient plants and animals that can provide scientifically significant information about the history of life on earth. Paleontological “sensitivity” is defined as the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. This sensitivity is determined by rock type, history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities that are recorded from that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is assigned based on fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just at a specific site. Paleontological sensitivity ratings are described as follows: High Sensitivity. Indicates fossils are currently observed on site, localities are recorded within the study area, and/or the unit has a history of producing numerous significant fossil remains. Moderate Sensitivity. Fossils within the unit are generally not unique, or are so poorly preserved as to have only moderate scientific significance. Low Sensitivity. Indicates significant fossils are not likely to be found because of a random fossil distribution pattern, extreme youth of the rock unit, and/or the method of rock formation, such as alteration by heat and pressure. Marginal Sensitivity. Indicates the limited probability of the geologic unit composed of either pyroclastic or metasedimentary rocks conducive to the existence and/or preservation of fossils. Zero Sensitivity. Origin of the geologic unit renders it not conducive to the existence of organisms and/or preservation of fossils, such as high‐grade metamorphic rocks, intrusive igneous rocks, and most volcanic rocks. Indeterminate Sensitivity. Unknown or undetermined sensitivity indicates that the geologic unit has not been sufficiently studied, or lacks good exposures to warrant a definitive rating.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Infrastructure
    CITY OF SANTA ROSA EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 2020 CHAPTER 8 INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS CHAPTER Water Supply Distribution | Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality | Dry Utilities 8.1 INFRASTRUCTURE FINDINGS Water Supply and Distribution 1. The City’s Water Department provides water service to approximately 178,000 people through 53,000 service connections. The Sonoma County Water Agency supplies most of the water, and the City uses groundwater to supplement the water supply. 2. The City has identified projects needed to increase water delivery capacity. Under the guidance of the Water Master Plan Update, the City has completed the 17 highest- priority capital improvement projects and 55 more projects are currently in design, planned, or under construction. Wastewater Collection and Treatment 3. The City maintains 590 miles of sewer system infrastructure. The sewer system discharges into the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant, which can treat up to 21.34 million gallons per day before releasing it into the Russian River. 4. The Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan identifies several trunk line replacements or improvements needed to reduce the flow of stormwater and groundwater into the aging sewer system. Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality 5. Santa Rosa uses a combination of closed conduit and open channel systems to convey stormwater runoff from six primary drainage basins to the major creeks that run through the city. The city’s creeks discharge into the Laguna de Santa Rosa, which eventually discharges surface waters into the Russian River. 6. The southern portion of the city has flooded historically along Colgan Creek and Roseland Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • (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.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]