DOCSLIB.ORG

I. Biological Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I. Biological Resources JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Introduction This section describes the biological resources setting and existing conditions as they relate to the BART to Livermore Extension Project, discusses the applicable regulations, and assesses the potential impacts to biological resources from construction and operation of the Proposed Project and Alternatives. For the purpose of this analysis, the study area for potential direct impacts includes the collective footprint—the combined footprints of the Proposed Project, Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative, and Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative. In addition, the bus routes and bus infrastructure improvements for the Enhanced Bus Alternative, as well as for the feeder buses for the Proposed Project and other Build Alternatives, which are anticipated to extend along existing streets and within the street rights-of-way (ROWs), are addressed programmatically in this analysis, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description. To produce a comprehensive species list for the study area, the analysis considered sensitive wildlife and plant resources that are documented within 5 miles of the collective footprint. The analysis presented in this section is based on a review of existing information and results from site surveys, which include the following: . Focused and reconnaissance-level wildlife, botanical, and wetland surveys performed by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) from 2013 to 2016 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . City of Dublin General Plan6 1 Environmental Science Associates, 2013a. BART to Livermore Extension (BLVX) Project Consolidated Biological Resources Report, Site 7 [I-580 Corridor Area], Alameda County, California. Prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. October. 2 Environmental Science Associates, 2013b. BART to Livermore Extension (BLVX), Consolidated Biological Resources Report, Site 2 [Isabel North], Alameda County, California, Prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, October. 3 Environmental Science Associates, 2013c. BART to Livermore Extension (BLVX), Consolidated Biological Resources Report, Site 1 [Isabel South], Alameda County, California, Prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. November. 4 Environmental Science Associates, 2013d. BART to Livermore Extension (BLVX), Consolidated Biological Resources Report, Site 3 [Laughlin Road Area], Alameda County, California, Prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, October. 5 Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2014. BART to Livermore Extension Project, Rare Plant Survey Report, Prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. June. 6 City of Dublin, 2013a. City of Dublin General Plan 817 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 7 . City of Dublin, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR 8 . City of Livermore, El Charro Specific Plan Final EIR9 . City of Pleasanton, Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan/Staples Ranch Final EIR10 . California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Interstate Highway (I-) 580 Eastbound HOV Lane Project from East of Greenville Road to Hacienda Drive11 . The 2010 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS)12 . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Permitted Projects Utilizing the EACCS that May Affect Federally Listed Species in East Alameda County, California 13 . USFWS, Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon 14 . USFWS, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants; Final Rule15 . California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Rarefind 516 7 City of Dublin, 1994. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Available at: http://dublinca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7776. 8 City of Dublin, 2013b. Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. June. Available at: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/4739. 9 City of Livermore, 2007. Final Environmental Impact Report for the El Charro Specific Plan. April. Available at: http://www.cityoflivermore.net/citygov/cedd/planning/charro.htm, accessed April, 2016. 10 City of Pleasanton, 2008. Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan/Staples Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report. Available at: http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/cd/planning/specific/ stoneridge.asp. 11 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2006. Environmental Assessment/Initial Study I 580 Eastbound HOV Lane Project from East of Greenville Road to Hacienda Drive. September. 12 ICF International, 2010. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Final Draft. October. (ICF 00906.08.) San Jose, CA. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee, Livermore, CA. 13 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2012. Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permitted Projects Utilizing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy that May Affect Federally Listed Species in East Alameda County, California (Corps File Number 2011 00230S). May 31. 14 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2005a. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon, Portland, Oregon, xxvi+ 606 pages. 15 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2006. Federal Register Final Rule; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants. Federal Register 71(28):7118 7316. 16 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2016. Rarefind 5. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, August 4. 818 JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . USFWS, Species List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species 17 . California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California18 . USFWS, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-Legged Frog; Final Rule19 No scoping comments pertaining to biological resources were received in response to the Notice of Preparation for this EIR or during the public scoping meeting held for the EIR. 2. Existing Conditions This subsection describes the existing conditions for biological resources, including the regional context, the local setting and survey methods, vegetation communities, special-status plant and wildlife species, accounts of species occurrence, wetlands and other waters, critical habitats, and wildlife corridors. a. Regional Overview The study area is located within eastern Alameda County within the Dublin, Livermore, and Altamont United States (U.S.) Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles. Topographically, the study area includes a range of elevations, including approximately 330 feet above mean sea level at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (Dublin/Pleasanton Station) and approximately 510 feet above mean sea level at the Cayetano Creek Area. The overall slope and aspect of the study area falls in an east-to-west direction. The study area generally runs parallels to I-580, within highly urbanized landscapes in the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. However, the study area also extends through agricultural and grazing lands in the vicinity of Isabel South Area and the Cayetano Creek Area. The study area encompasses a variety of land uses that include the existing I-580 transportation corridor and residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Undeveloped areas both north and south of I-580 support agriculture and open space land uses, with annual grassland and ruderal habitats as the most common habitat types north of I-580 in 17 United States. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2016. Species List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species. Available at: www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm, accessed August 5, 2016. 18 California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.45). Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org, accessed 10 July 2017. 19 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2010. Federal Register Final Rule; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red Legged Frog. Federal Register 50(17): 12816-12959. 819 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES undeveloped areas. South of I-580, non-urbanized areas support recreation (e.g., Las Positas Golf Course), limited agriculture, and open space. Approved and planned urban development in the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton has reduced much of the remaining open space in the western portion of the study area. Drainages that extend through the study area include Line G-1-1, Chabot Canal, Line G-2 (Hewlett Canal), Tassajara Creek, Line G-3, Cottonwood Creek, Collier Canyon Creek, Isabel Creek, Arroyo las Positas, and Cayetano Creek, as well as several smaller aquatic features. With the exception of Arroyo las Positas, these watercourses have been
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    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
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 72 January 1950 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART 11.PPACIFIC SLOPE BASINS IN CALIFORNIA TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1948 Prepared by San Francisco District UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director WASHINGTON, D. C. Free on application to the Director, Geological Survey, Washington 26, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART 11.PPACIFIC SLOPE BASINS IN CALIFORNIA TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1948 EXPLANATION The index lists the stream-flow ana reservoir stations in the Pacific Slope Basins in California for which records have been or are to be pub­ lished for periods prior to September 30, 1948. The stations are listed in downstream order. Tributary streams are indicated by indention. Station names are given in their most recently published forms. Paren­ theses around part of a station name indicate that the enclosed word or words were used in an earlier published name of the station or in a name under which records were published by some agency other than the Geological Survey. The drainage areas, in square miles, are the latest figures published or otherwise available at this time. Drainage areas that were obviously inconsistent with other drainage areas on the same stream have been omitted. Some drainage areas not published by the Geological Survey are listed with an appropriate footnote stating the published source of the figure of drainage area. Under "period of record" breaks of less than a 12-month period are not shown. A dash not followed immediately by a closing date shows that the station was in operation on September 30, 1948.
    [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]
  • 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources 5
    5.6 Westside5.6 Groundwater 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources 5. WSIP Water Supply and System Operations – Setting and Impacts 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources This section describes the potential effects of the WSIP water supply and system operations and associated WSIP projects on the Westside Groundwater Basin and related water resources, including Lake Merced. The proposed water supply sources under the WSIP include 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of supply every year in all years (including nondrought periods) from implementation of conservation, water recycling, and groundwater supply programs in San Francisco; in addition, the proposed water supply option includes a long-term conjunctive-use program in the San Mateo County portion of the Westside Groundwater Basin, referred to as the South Westside Groundwater Basin, as part of the drought-year water supply for the regional system. The recycled water and groundwater components of this supply would be achieved through two WSIP projects, the Local and Regional Groundwater Projects (SF-2) and the Recycled Water Projects (SF-3), which are described in Chapter 3. The potential effects of the WSIP on the Westside Groundwater Basin and related resources are discussed in the context of ongoing activities in this area occurring among the SFPUC, City of Daly City, California Water Service Company (Cal Water, the municipal water purveyor to South San Francisco), and the City of San Bruno. 5.6.1 Setting 5.6.1.1 Westside Groundwater Basin The Westside Groundwater Basin extends from San Francisco south to San Mateo County (Figure 5.6-1). With an area of about 45 square miles, this groundwater basin is the largest in San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Point Presentation
    Friends of the Arroyos A “tributary” of the Alameda Creek Alliance Arroyo Mocho * Arroyo Las Positas * Arroyo Seco * Arroyo del Valle * Arroyo de la Laguna Altamont Creek * Cayateno Creek * Cottonwood Creek * Cottinger Creek * Tassajara Creek * Dry Creek * Mission Creek * Sycamore Creek * Vallecitos Creek MISSION ØRestore the historical steelhead trout migration through the Arroyos via Alameda Creek to the SF Bay ØPromote stream restoration, cleanups, and awareness Steelhead Trout Background Information ØSteelhead are rainbow trout that migrate to the ocean from breeding sites in cool water streams. ØSteelhead (up to 30”) have been caught in the Arroyos here up until the 1960s. ØThey currently do not migrate through the Arroyos because of - barriers in lower Alameda Creek and the Arroyos - inadequate stream flows allowed by Zone 7 Water Agency. ØBiologists have determined that steelhead could spawn in the upper gorge of Arroyo Mocho where native trout already live ØSmolts (juveniles) can survive in existing deep spring-fed pools in the Mocho gorge during our hot summers ØSmolts (1-2 yrs old) migrate downstream and adults upstream to spawn and back during the high flows around storm events. Adults can travel 1 mile/hour! Historical evidence of migration Steelhead caught in Alameda Creek in 1961 Livermore Herald: April 9, 1910 A 30” trout must be a steelhead! How did the steelhead migrate to the Bay? Spawning Habitat in Arroyo Mocho Gorge Map from pg. 24 of “An Assessment of the Potential for Restoring a Viable Steelhead Trout Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed” Prepared for the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup, Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • Zone 7 Flood Control Department
    Zone 7 Water Agency Flood Protection Program 2013 Annual Report May 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................... 2 Highlighted Accomplishments from 2013 ............................................................................................... 3 ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................................................... 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........................................................................................ 5 Contract Administration and Management ............................................................................................... 5 Encroachment Permit Program ................................................................................................................. 6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers PL 84-99 Federal Assistance Program ................................................... 6 Trail-Use Collaboration and Support ....................................................................................................... 6 Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments
    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Potential for Restoring a Viable Steelhead Trout Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed
    I 580 Si San Francisco Bay Stonybrook Cr. n ba d C r Arroyo Mocho Vallecitos Cr. Canyon San Antonio Reservoir Lake Del Valle I 680 Pirate Cr. I 880 Welch Cr. Alameda Diversion Valpe Cr. Tunnel Calaveras Reservoir Plate 1 - Alameda Creek Watershed Alameda Creek Watershed An Assessment of the Potential for Restoring a Viable Steelhead Trout Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed prepared for the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup by Andrew J. Gunther Jeffrey Hagar Paul Salop Applied Marine Sciences, Inc. 4749 Bennett Dr., Suite L Livermore, CA 94550 www.amarine.com Hagar Environmental Science 6523 Claremont Ave, Suite B Richmond, CA 94805 February 7, 2000 Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup 2/7/00 Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup 2/7/00 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................iii Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5 A. Background......................................................................................................... 5 B. Decision Process for preparation of this report .................................................. 7 II. The Alameda Creek Watershed .............................................................................
    [Show full text]