DOCSLIB.ORG

Gentry Suisun Draft EIR Vol II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gentry Suisun Draft EIR Vol II Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX A- EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 162 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX B- EXISTING LOS RESULTS 163 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX C- EXISTING PLUS APPROVED LOS RESULTS 164 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX D- MODEL DOCUMENTATION 165 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX E- CUMULATIVE LOS RESULTS 166 Administrative Draft EIR Suisun Gentry Project February 10, 2006 4.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential biological resource impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Suisun Gentry Project and includes a discussion of the mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level where possible. The information contained in this analysis is primarily based upon the Biological Assessment, Gentry-Suisun Project, City of Suisun City, Solano County, California prepared by The Huffman-Broadway Group (2006) and the Wetland Delineation and Special- Status Species Survey Report prepared by Vollmar Consulting (2003). Additional details on plant and wildlife species presence are based upon field surveys performed by Foothill Associates’ biologists. This report describes the habitat types, jurisdictional waters, and presence/absence of special-status plants and animals at the Proposed Project area and provides a review of existing literature, maps, and aerial photography pertaining to the biological resources of the area. It also evaluates potential impacts of the proposed Project in relation to CEQA and other environmental laws, and provides mitigation recommendations. Foothill Associates has prepared this Section of the EIR for the proposed Suisun Gentry Project (Project) in central Solano County, California. The Proposed Project includes the following components: Subdivision and development of a mixed-use Project on 88.44 acres of the Annexation Properties (i.e., the “Project Site” or the “Mixed Use Site,” see Section 2.2.2). Annexation of 172.36 acres from Solano County into the City of Suisun City (i.e., the “Annexation Properties”) The Proposed Project will occur within the “Project Area,” which comprises 493.36 acres south of State Highway 12, west of the City of Suisun City, as shown on Figure 4.8-1. Figure 4.8-1 also shows the Project Area overlain on a portion of the Fairfield South 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map. Five Planning Areas have been defined within the Project Area; Figure 4.8-1 shows the designated Planning Areas. The Mixed Use Site (a.k.a. the “Project Site”) will be developed on Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3. Wetlands preservation and creation areas are anticipated to be developed on Planning Areas 4 and 5. Figure 4.8-2 shows the parcels and names of the properties that comprise the Project Area, including both the “Project Site” and the “Annexation Properties,” the five Planning Areas; Table 4.8-1 lists parcel numbers, acreages, and owners within the Project Area. Because previous wetland delineations and special-status species studies that are incorporated into this Biological Assessment refer to the “Gentry,” “Tooby,” and “Barnfield” properties, this naming Chapter 4.8 – Biological Resources 4.8-1 Administrative Draft EIR Suisun Gentry Project February 10, 2006 convention is used herein to facilitate reference to the previous studies, although the Tooby and Barnfield properties – as well as the Gentry property – are now owned by Tom Gentry California Company. The “Gentry” property refers to Planning Area 1 (part of APN 0032-010-390) and part of Planning Area 2 (i.e., APN 0032-190-260 only). The “Tooby” property refers to Planning Area 3 (part of APN 0032-020-100) and Planning Area 4 (part of APNs 0032-020-100, 0032-020-140, and 0032-020-160). The “Barnfield” property refers to Planning Area 5. Figure 4.8-2 also shows the “Annexation Properties” to be annexed by the City of Suisun City (Table 4.8-2). The Annexation Properties comprise 172.36 acres, which includes the 88.44-acre Project Site (Table 4.8-2). These include the Gilbert parcel, the Ardave parcel, the Sheldon Oil parcel, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), Cordelia Road, and Pennsylvania Avenue rights of way. METHODS The Tooby, Gentry, and Barnfield properties have been the subject of detailed wetland delineations conducted by Vollmar Consulting and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) on February 20, 2003. The Gilbert parcel, Sheldon Oil parcel, Ardave parcel and the various rights of way included in the Project Area were the subject of a preliminary wetlands assessment conducted by Terry Huffman, Ph.D. of Huffman-Broadway Group (HBG) in July 2005, but these parcels have not been the subject of detailed wetland delineation. A general biological survey of the Gilbert parcel, Sheldon Oil parcel, Ardave parcel and the various rights of way included in the Project Area as well as Planning Area 2 were conducted by Foothill Associates’ biologist Thomas Ryan on February 6, 2006. Mr. John Vollmar and Mr. Vir McCoy of Vollmar Consulting conducted special-status plant surveys on the Gentry and Tooby properties during spring and summer 2000. Mr. Vollmar conducted an additional special-status plant survey during late April and early May 2001 and 2002. Gentry and Tooby property spring field surveys were conducted May 3 and 4, 2000, with an additional summer survey conducted on August 15, 2000. The second spring survey was conducted on April 26, 2001. Plant surveys during 2000 – 2002 were part of a broader biological survey and wetland delineation. During all surveys, each of the three properties was walked, with the survey effort focused on specialized habitats with high potential to support special-status plant species. All plant species observed were identified and recorded. Those specimens that could not be readily identified in the field were collected and identified later. Locations of special-status plants were mapped onto enlarged (1:3,600) aerial photo base maps of the three properties obtained from WAC Corporation in Eugene, Oregon (WAC Corporation 1999). The aerial photos were taken in spring 1999. Spring surveys conducted between 2000 and 2002 on all three properties targeted special-status plant species associated with vernal pool, annual grassland, and seasonally saturated grassland habitats. Spring surveys were timed to coincide with peak blooms of spring Chapter 4.8 – Biological Resources 4.8-2 Administrative Draft EIR Suisun Gentry Project February 10, 2006 periods, which typically occur during mid-spring. The summer surveys of 2000 targeted special- status plant species associated with alkali seasonal marsh and perennial marsh habitats. The summer surveys were timed to coincide with the peak summer bloom period, which typically occurs during mid-summer. Ms. Gretchen Vos, Mr. Vir McCoy, Ms. Shannon Hickey, and Ms. Wendy Renz conducted special-status plant surveys on the Gentry, Tooby, and Barnfield properties on April 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 15, and August 8, 2005. The surveys targeted special-status plant species associated with vernal pool, annual grassland, alkaline seasonal marsh, and seasonally saturated grassland habitats. The April surveys were timed to coincide with peak spring bloom. The August surveys focused on the alkali seasonal marsh and perennial brackish marsh habitats associated with the upper Suisun Marsh and were timed, to coincide with the peak summer bloom period. Surveys during 2005 focused on special-status plant species only. The surveys included complete coverage of each of the Gentry, Tooby, and Barnfield properties with special focus on specialized habitats with high potential to support special-status plant species. During these surveys, any new species were identified and recorded. Locations of special-status plants were mapped using a GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy (Trimble GeoXT). At each occurrence of a special-status plant, the number and density of plants, the associated species, and basic habitat information were recorded. The number of plants was determined by visual estimate. Attachment 1: Table 1, includes a list of all plant species identified on the three properties. Scientific plant names used correspond to Hickman (1993). Common plant names are from Hickman (1993) and Reed (1988). The results of the 2000, 2001 and 2002 special status plant surveys are reported in Special-Status Species Survey and Wetland Delineation Report for the Barnfield Property, Suisun, Solano County, California (Vollmar Consulting, November 11, 2003), and Wetland Delineation and Special Status Species Survey Report for the Gentry and Tooby Properties, Suisun, Solano County, California (Vollmar Consulting, January 27, 2003). These reports are available under separate cover and are summarized below. The results of the spring 2005 surveys and summaries of the earlier findings are reported in Gentry, Tooby and Barnfield Properties- Special-Status Plant Survey Report 2000 – 2002 and 2005 Field Seasons (Vollmar Consulting, June 23, 2005). Protocol level wet-season surveys for federally-listed vernal pool large branchiopods (fairy and tadpole shrimp) were conducted during the winter/spring of 1999/2000 by May Consulting Services. These surveys also served to check for the presence of California tiger salamanders (Ambystoma californiense), Ricksecker’s water scavenger beetle
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-18054, and on govinfo.gov Billing Code 4333-15 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 26, 32, 36, and 71 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000] RIN 1018-BD79 2019–2020 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open seven National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing. In addition, we expand hunting and sport fishing at 70 other NWRs, and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2019–2020 season. We also formally open 15 units of the National Fish Hatchery System to hunting and sport fishing. We also add pertinent station- specific regulations that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing at these 15 National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs) for the 2019–2020 season. This rule includes global administrative updates to every NWR entry in our refuge- specific regulations and the reorganization of general public use regulations. We remove approximately 2,100 regulations that will have no impact on the administration of hunting and sport fishing within the National Wildlife Refuge System. We also simplify over 2,900 refuge- specific regulations to comply with a Presidential mandate to adhere to plain language standards 1 and to reduce the regulatory burden on the public.
    [Show full text]
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Fig. Ap. 2.1. Denton Tending His Fairy Shrimp Collection
    Fig. Ap. 2.1. Denton tending his fairy shrimp collection. 176 Appendix 1 Hatching and Rearing Back in the bowels of this book we noted that However, salts may leach from soils to ultimately if one takes dry soil samples from a pool basin, make the water salty, a situation which commonly preferably at its deepest point, one can then "just turns off hatching. Tap water is usually unsatis- add water and stir". In a day or two nauplii ap- factory, either because it has high TDS, or because pear if their cysts are present. O.K., so they won't it contains chlorine or chloramine, disinfectants always appear, but you get the idea. which may inhibit hatching or kill emerging If your desire is to hatch and rear fairy nauplii. shrimps the hi-tech way, you should get some As you have read time and again in Chapter 5, guidance from Brendonck et al. (1990) and temperature is an important environmental cue for Maeda-Martinez et al. (1995c). If you merely coaxing larvae from their dormant state. You can want to see what an anostracan is like, buy some guess what temperatures might need to be ap- Artemia cysts at the local aquarium shop and fol- proximated given the sample's origin. Try incu- low directions on the container. Should you wish bation at about 3-5°C if it came from the moun- to find out what's in your favorite pool, or gather tains or high desert. If from California grass- together sufficient animals for a study of behavior lands, 10° is a good level at which to start.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • GRA 9 – South Delta
    2-900 .! 2-905 .! 2-950 .! 2-952 2-908 .! .! 2-910 .! 2-960 .! 2-915 .! 2-963 .! 2-964 2-965 .! .! 2-917 .! 2-970 2-920 ! .! . 2-922 .! 2-924 .! 2-974 .! San Joaquin County 2-980 2-929 .! .! 2-927 .! .! 2-925 2-932 2-940 Contra Costa .! .! County .! 2-930 2-935 .! Alameda 2-934 County ! . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Area Map Office of Spill Prevention and Response I Data Source: O SPR NAD_1983_C alifornia_Teale_Albers ACP2 - GRA9 Requestor: ACP Coordinator Author: J. Muskat Date Created: 5/2 Environmental Sensitive Sites Section 9849 – GRA 9 South Delta Table of Contents GRA 9 Map ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 Site Index/Response Action ...................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Response Resources for GRA 9......................................................................... 4 9849.1 Environmentally Sensitive Sites 2-900-A Old River Mouth at San Joaquin River....................................................... 1 2-905-A Franks Tract Complex................................................................................... 4 2-908-A Sand Mound Slough ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta Lynchi)
    fairy shrimp populations are regularly monitored by Bureau of Land Management staff. In the San Joaquin Vernal Pool Region, vernal pool habitats occupied by the longhorn fairy shrimp are protected at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge. 4. VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP (BRANCHINECTA LYNCHI) a. Description and Taxonomy Taxonomy.—The vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) was first described by Eng, Belk and Eriksen (Eng et al. 1990). The species was named in honor of James B. Lynch, a systematist of North American fairy shrimp. The type specimen was collected in 1982 at Souza Ranch, Contra Costa County, California. Although not yet described, the vernal pool fairy shrimp had been collected as early as 1941, when it was identified as the Colorado fairy shrimp by Linder (1941). Description and Identification.—Although most species of fairy shrimp look generally similar (see Box 1- Appearance and Identification of Vernal Pool Crustaceans), vernal pool fairy shrimp are characterized by the presence and size of several mounds (see identification section below) on the male's second antennae, and by the female's short, pyriform brood pouch. Vernal pool fairy shrimp vary in size, ranging from 11 to 25 millimeters (0.4 to 1.0 inch) in length (Eng et al. 1990). Vernal pool fairy shrimp closely resemble Colorado fairy shrimp (Branchinecta coloradensis) (Eng et al. 1990). However, there are differences in the shape of a small mound-like feature located at the base of the male's antennae, called the pulvillus. The Colorado fairy shrimp has a round pulvillus, while the vernal pool fairy shrimp's pulvillus is elongate.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Sediment / Unlock Alameda Creek
    PUBLIC SEDIMENT / UNLOCK ALAMEDA CREEK WWW.RESILIENTBAYAREA.ORG ◄ BAYLANDS = LIVING INFRA STR CTY\, E' j(II( ........ • 400 +-' -L C Based on preliminary 0 analysis by SFfl. A more , detailed analysis is beinq E TIDAL MARSH conducted as part of -l/) the Healthy Watersheds l/) ro Resilient Aaylands E project (hwrb.sfei.org) +-' C QJ E "'O MUDFLAT QJ V1 SAC-SJ DELTA 0 1 Sediment supply was estimated by 'Sediment demand was estimated multiplying the current average using a mudflat soil bulK density of annual c;ediment load valuec; from 1.5 q c;ediment/rm c;oil (Brew and McKee et al. (in prep) by the number Williams :?010), a tidal marsh soil of years between 201 r and2100. bulK density ot 0.4 g sed1m ent / cm 3 c;oil (Callaway et al. :?010), and baywide mudflat and marsh area circa 2009 (BAARI vl). BAYLANDS TODAY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 3' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 7' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY WE MUST LOOK UPSTREAM TRIBUTARIES FEED THE BAY SONOMA CREEK NAPA RIVER PETALUMA CREEK WALNUT CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK COYOTE CREEK GUADALUPE CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK SEDIMENTSHED ALAMEDA CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED - 660 SQMI OAKLAND ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE THE CREEK BUILT AN ALLUVIAL FAN AND FED THE BAY ALAMEDA CREEK SOUTH BAY NILES CONE ALLUVIAL FAN HIGH SEDIMENT FEEDS MARSHES TIDAL WETLANDS IT HAS BEEN LOCKED IN PLACE OVER TIME LIVERMORE PLEASANTON SUNOL UNION CITY NILES SAN MATEO BRIDGE EDEN LANDING FREMONT NEWARK LOW SEDIMENT CARGILL SALT PONDS DUMBARTON BRIDGE SEDIMENT FLOWS ARE HIGHLY MODIFIED SEDIMENT IS STUCK IN CHANNEL IMPOUNDED BY DAMS UPSTREAM REDUCED SUPPLY TO THE BAY AND VULNERABILITIES ARE EXACERBATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE EROSION SUBSIDENCE SEA LEVEL RISE THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL SAN MATEO BRIDGE UNION CITY NILES RUBBER DAMS BART WEIR EDEN LANDING PONDS HEAD OF TIDE FREMONT 880 NEWARK TIDAL EXTENT FLUVIAL EXTENT DUMBARTON BRIDGE.
    [Show full text]
  • Hayward Regional Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan Appendix a Stakeholder and Public Comments
    SCAPE ARCADIS CONVEY RE:FOCUS SFEI HAYWARD REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE HAYWARD AREA SHORELINE PLANNING AGENCY (HASPA) PART OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD, HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT, AND EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT HAYWARD REGIONAL SHORELINE MASTER PLAN APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED 10/02/2020 PUBLIC ONLINE SURVEY 02/27/19 - 03/15/19 ONLINE SURVEY SUMMARY A 23-question survey was conducted on behalf of the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA) to assess the public’s general understanding of Hayward Regional Shoreline, mainly in regard to sea level rise, potential flooding, and participants’ feelings, concerns, and predictions regarding these issues. In the spring of 2019, this survey was completed by approximately 900 people throughout the Bay Area, primarily those who live, work, commute through, or recreate at or near the shoreline. 1. Are you familiar with the Hayward Regional Shoreline that is managed by East Bay Regional Park District and Hayward Area Recreation and Park District? The majority of people surveyed are familiar with the Hayward Regional Shoreline. 2. What’s your association with the project area? The majority of those surveyed either drive through the area or enjoy the views of the Shoreline. Approximately two thirds of those surveyed visit the Shoreline and about one third live near the Shoreline. A smaller percentage (about ten percent) specified that they enjoy activities such as birding, cycling, jogging or walking along the Shoreline. A negligible amount of those surveyed stated they’d like to see restaurants built on the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Wetland Habitat Projects of the San
    ACTIVE WETLAND HABITAT PROJECTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE The SFBJV tracks and facilitates habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects throughout the nine Bay Area Projects listed Alphabetically by County counties. This map shows where a variety of active wetland habitat projects with identified funding needs are currently ALAMEDA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND. NEED MARIN COUNTY (continued) MAP ACRES FUND. NEED underway. For a more comprehensive list of all the projects we track, visit: www.sfbayjv.org/projects.php Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration 1 NA $12,000,000 McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration 33 180 $17,500,000 Alameda Point Restoration 2 660 TBD Novato Deer Island Tidal Wetlands Restoration 34 194 $7,000,000 Coyote Hills Regional Park - Restoration and Public Prey enhancement for sea ducks - a novel approach 3 306 $12,000,000 35 3.8 $300,000 Access Project to subtidal habitat restoration Hayward Shoreline Habitat Restoration 4 324 $5,000,000 Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 36 46 $8,200,000 Hoffman Marsh Restoration Project - McLaughlin 5 40 $2,500,000 Spinnaker Marsh Restoration 37 17 $3,000,000 Eastshore State Park Intertidal Habitat Improvement Project - McLaughlin 6 4 $1,000,000 Tennessee Valley Wetlands Restoration 38 5 $600,000 Eastshore State Park Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline - Water 7 200 $3,000,000 Tiscornia Marsh Restoration 39 16 $1,500,000 Quality Project Oakland Gateway Shoreline - Restoration and 8 200 $12,000,000 Tomales Dunes Wetlands 40 2 $0 Public Access Project Off-shore Bird Habitat Project - McLaughlin 9 1 $1,500,000 NAPA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND.
    [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]
  • (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]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Wednesday, September 8, 2004 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 31 and 32 2004–2005 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; Final Rule VerDate jul<14>2003 17:08 Sep 07, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM 08SER2 54350 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR regulations to ensure the continued Act (Recreation Act) of 1962 (16 U.S.C. compatibility of hunting and sport 460k–460k–4) govern the administration Fish and Wildlife Service fishing programs and to ensure that and public use of refuges. these programs will not materially Amendments enacted by the National 50 CFR Parts 31 and 32 interfere with or detract from the Wildlife Refuge System Improvement RIN 1018–AT40 fulfillment of refuge purposes or the Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) build Refuge System’s mission. upon the Administration Act in a 2004–2005 Refuge-Specific Hunting Provisions governing hunting and manner that provides an ‘‘organic act’’ and Sport Fishing Regulations sport fishing on refuges are in Title 50 for the Refuge System similar to those of the Code of Federal Regulations in that exist for other public Federal lands. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, part 32 (50 CFR part 32). We regulate The Improvement Act serves to ensure Interior. hunting and sport fishing on refuges to: that we effectively manage the Refuge ACTION: Final rule. • Ensure compatibility with refuge System as a national network of lands, purpose(s); waters, and interests for the protection SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service • Properly manage the fish and and conservation of our Nation’s adds 10 new refuges and wetland wildlife resource(s); wildlife resources.
    [Show full text]