DOCSLIB.ORG

Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Resource Analysis East Bay Regional Park District CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE RESOURCE ANALYSIS Adopted: November 17, 1992 Resolution No: 1992-11-302 Prepared by: East Bay Regional Park District Planning/ Stewardship Department 2950 Peralta Oaks Drive Oakland, CA 94605 " .. .1 was almost wild to get out alone with the big sail and go tearing down the Carquinez Strait ... " Jack London, Tales of the Fish Patrol FOREWORD Carquinez Strait channels waters flowing from Sierran snow beds through the vast fields of the Central Valley to meet the salt waters of the Pacific Ocean in the San Fran­ cisco Bay. The broad streams of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers converge in the Carquinez Strait and along their course supply water for over two thirds of California residents. Much of this immense ancient water system is visible from the bluffs rising above the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. We usually speed by these waters on freeways or over them on bridges, catching a glimpse of sailboats on the way to somewhere else. At Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline one can sit quietly under coastal bluffs next to the water's edge and contrast the relatively recent trappi1\gs of human history, the factories, subdivisions, railroads and ships, to the larger, more permanent forces of nature at this northern border of the Bay. This waterfront area offers tremendous potential for recreation, preservation of natural resources and education. The diversity of resources is reflected in the special aspects of the park's location; its views, open water, trail system, marine climate and historic buildings. It is the water oriented and water dependent attributes that make this site so unique - an area of truly regional significance. To determine the feasibility of Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline to function as a park, it is necessary to understand the natural and cultural features that the area pos­ sesses; for these are the primary materials from which the park is to be made. The purpose of the Resource Analysis is to describe and locate those features that are most crucial to the development of a plan that will preserve the park's natural resources and develop its recreational opportunities: topography, slope, hydrology, vegetation, wildlife, soils, geology, visual attributes, roadways, trails and cultural resources. This information will form the foundation upon which the Land Use-Development Plan will be built. CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE _RESOURCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 1 II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 7 A. Description and Location .................................................................................. 7 B. Land Use History ............................................................................................... 9 C. Regional Shoreline Classification and Purpose ...................... ........................ 12 III. NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORy............................................ 13 A. Topography and Visual Resources .................................................................. 13 B. Water Resources and Water Quality ................................................................ 17 C. Geology and Soils .......................... ............. .................... ................. .................. 22 D. Biological Resources ....... ............... .................. ..... ........... ....................... ........... 28 E. Climate and Air Quality .............. ........... ........ ......... ...... .......... ..... .... ....... ..... ..... 38 IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORy.......................................... 39 A. Archaeological Resources ................................................................................. 39 B. Access, Circulation and Transportation .......................................................... 43 C. Recreation Facilities and Use ............................................................................ 50 D. Service Facilities and Utilities ......... ............... ..... .......... ....... .......... ....... ............ 54 E. Easements and Legal Agreements ................................................................... 57 F. Zoning and Other Agency Designations .............. ............... ........ .................... 60 V. BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 66 References Cited ... ............. ............... .................... ........... ................. ............ ........... 66 VI. REPORT PREPARATION .................................................................... 67 VII. APPENDICES ........................................................................................ 68 Appendix A Purpose and Role of the East Bay Regional Park District .............. ...... ................ ............ ............ ......... 68 Appendix B East Bay Regional Park District Planning Process ..... ................ ..................... .............. ............. ........ 69 Appendix C List of Plants ...... ................ ........ ................ ................ ..................... 71 Appendix D List of Wildlife Species .................................................................. 77 Appendix E List of Aquatic Vertebrates and Invertebrates ............................. 83 Appendix F Visitor Survey .................................................................................. 85 Appendix G Range Analysis Report ................................................................... 87 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Vicinity Ma.p ........... ......... ...... .................... ............ ....... ......... ........... ...... 2 1-2 Opportunities and Constraints Ma.p .................................................... 4-5 2-1 Location Ma.p ..... .... ....... .... ....... ........ ... ....... ................ ..... ........ ........... ..... 6 3-1 Hydrology and Topography ................................................................. 20-21 3-2 Soils and Landslides .............................................................................. 26-27 3-3 Natural Resources .................................................................................. 36-37 4-1 Indian Tribes Around San Francisco Bay...................... ................ ...... 39 4-2 Ridge and Shoreline Trails .................................................................... 44 4-3 Existing Facilities and Circulation........................................................ 48-49 4-4 Wh.ite' s Resort......................................................................................... 51 4-5 Acquisition Parcel Map .................................................. :...................... 58-59 4-6 General Plan Designation ................................... ............... .................... 64-65 I. SUMMARY Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline is a park of road is not the only constraint preventing access high rounded bills that form the open space to this park. Existing parkland holdings have backdropforthreequietwaterfronttowns: Mar­ limited potential for new staging areas and tinez, Crockett and Port Costa. Visitors to this public access because of the lack of connection recently opened park have taken advantage of to public roads. Additional acquisitions could splendid hiking opportunities reminiscent of enhance and protect existing views and im­ those provided by the rolling-hills. of nearby-. FrQV~ access opportunities. Marina and fishing Briones Regional Park. What sets this site apart facilities could be rebuilt and connected to exist­ from other regional parks is the combination of ing parkland. Trails could be expanded to link typical parkfeatures (open land and trails) with the park to other recreation areas and trail extraordinary opportunities for water-related corridors. The Land Use Development Plan recreation and a vivid and rich history of hu­ (LUDP) will examine these possibilities in an man endeavor. effort to create an accessible r~onal shoreline park. The following discussion summarizes the The park also offers an interesting sequence of opportunities and constraints to the develop­ views, including sweeping panoramas of the ment of the LUDP. (See Figure 1-2) Strait and Delta region; visuallyinterestingfea­ tures, suclt as bridges, piers, factories and the OPPORTUNITIES changing scene offered by the day-to-day ship­ ping and boating activities of the Strait. ACCESS. Vehicle access to the park from major roads is generally good. Access exists Within the interior parkland perennial water at two staging areas a10ngCarquinez Scenic resources are scarce. Consequently, the land Drive, at the west and east ends of the park. has never sustained abundant wildlife popula­ Opportunities for additional vehicle access tions or early human settlements. The deep should be considered at portions of the park waterway adjacent to the park, however, pro­ not yet open for public use; the Crockett vided the conditions for a brief explosion of Hills Unit and the Port Costa Conservation industrial activity at the tum of the century. It Society land. Trail links may be possible continues to serve as a site for boating and sport betweentheCarquinez Strait Regional Shore­ fishing. line and Martinez Shoreline, Rankin Park and other open space lands. Bicycle and The land is now in transition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin
    Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city.
    [Show full text]
  • About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service
    About WETA Maintenance Facility will consolidate Central and South Bay fleet operations, include a fueling facility with emergency fuel The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation storage capacity, and provide an alternative EOC location, Authority (WETA) is a regional public transit agency tasked with thereby significantly expanding WETA’s emergency response operating and expanding ferry service on the San Francisco and recovery capabilities. Bay, and is responsible for coordinating the water transit response to regional emergencies. Future Present WETA is planning for a system that seamlessly connects cities in the greater Bay Area with San Francisco, using Today, WETA operates daily passenger ferry service to the fast, environmentally responsible vessels, with wait times cities of Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco, Vallejo, and South of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. WETA’s San Francisco, carr4$)"(*- /#)тѵр million passengers 2035 vision would expand service throughout the Bay Area, annually under the San Francisco Bay Ferry brand. Over the operating 12 services at 16 terminals with a fleet of 44 vessels. last five years, SF Bay Ferry ridership has grown чф percent. In the near term, WETA will launch a Richmond/San Francisco route (201ш) and new service to Treasure Island. Other By the Numbers terminal sites such as Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda, Berkeley, Mission Bay, Redwood City, the South Bay, and the Carquinez *- /#)ǔǹǒ --$ ./-).+*-/0+ Strait are on the not-too-distant horizon. ($''$*)-$ -. /*ǗǕǑ$& .-*.. 0. 4 --4 /# 4 #4ǹ 1 -44 -ǹ A Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service --4-$ -.#$+ 1 )! --$ . Vallejo #.$)- . /*!' / /2 )ǓǑǒǘ CARQUINEZ STRAIT Ǚǖʞ.$) ǓǑǒǓǹ )ǓǑǓǑǹ Hercules WETA Expansion Targets Richmond Funded Traveling by ferry has become increasingly more popular in • Richmond Berkeley the Bay Area, as the economy continues to improve and the • Treasure Island Partially Funded Pier 41 Treasure Island population grows.
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: an Overview
    Marine Geology 345 (2013) 3–17 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Geology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/margeo Sediment transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: An overview Patrick L. Barnard a,⁎, David H. Schoellhamer b,c, Bruce E. Jaffe a, Lester J. McKee d a U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, Sacramento, CA, USA c University of California, Davis, USA d San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA, USA article info abstract Article history: The papers in this special issue feature state-of-the-art approaches to understanding the physical processes Received 29 March 2012 related to sediment transport and geomorphology of complex coastal–estuarine systems. Here we focus on Received in revised form 9 April 2013 the San Francisco Bay Coastal System, extending from the lower San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta, through the Accepted 13 April 2013 Bay, and along the adjacent outer Pacific Coast. San Francisco Bay is an urbanized estuary that is impacted by Available online 20 April 2013 numerous anthropogenic activities common to many large estuaries, including a mining legacy, channel dredging, aggregate mining, reservoirs, freshwater diversion, watershed modifications, urban run-off, ship traffic, exotic Keywords: sediment transport species introductions, land reclamation, and wetland restoration. The Golden Gate strait is the sole inlet 9 3 estuaries connecting the Bay to the Pacific Ocean, and serves as the conduit for a tidal flow of ~8 × 10 m /day, in addition circulation to the transport of mud, sand, biogenic material, nutrients, and pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal
    Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Context Statement City of Benicia February 2011 Benicia, CA
    Historic Context Statement City of Benicia February 2011 Benicia, CA Prepared for City of Benicia Department of Public Works & Community Development Prepared by page & turnbull, inc. 1000 Sansome Street, Ste. 200, San Francisco CA 94111 415.362.5154 / www.page-turnbull.com Benicia Historic Context Statement FOREWORD “Benicia is a very pretty place; the situation is well chosen, the land gradually sloping back from the water, with ample space for the spread of the town. The anchorage is excellent, vessels of the largest size being able to tie so near shore as to land goods without lightering. The back country, including the Napa and Sonoma Valleys, is one of the finest agriculture districts in California. Notwithstanding these advantages, Benicia must always remain inferior in commercial advantages, both to San Francisco and Sacramento City.”1 So wrote Bayard Taylor in 1850, less than three years after Benicia’s founding, and another three years before the city would—at least briefly—serve as the capital of California. In the century that followed, Taylor’s assessment was echoed by many authors—that although Benicia had all the ingredients for a great metropolis, it was destined to remain in the shadow of others. Yet these assessments only tell a half truth. While Benicia never became the great commercial center envisioned by its founders, its role in Northern California history is nevertheless one that far outstrips the scale of its geography or the number of its citizens. Benicia gave rise to the first large industrial works in California, hosted the largest train ferries ever constructed, and housed the West Coast’s primary ordnance facility for over 100 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
    Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Prepared by Caroline Peattie and Jessica Tankersley, Fair Housing of Marin For the Marin County Community Development Agency Approved by the Marin County Board of Supervisors on October 11, 2011 MMMARIN CCCOUNTY CCCOMMUNITY DDDEVELOPMENT AAAGENCY BBBRIAN C.C.C. CCCRAWFORD ,,, DDDIRECTOR FFFEDERAL GGGRANTS DDDIVISION October 28, 2011 Mr. Chuck Hauptman, Regional Director Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Region IX U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 600 Harrison Street, Third Floor San Francisco, California 94107 Subject: County of Marin Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Dear Mr. Hauptman: On October 11, 2011, the Marin County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, including an Implementation Plan. This was the culmination of a process of ten public hearings. I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed copies of both documents. A video of the Board of Supervisors hearing is posted on the County’s website at http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/BS/Archive/Meetings.cfm . Please let me know if you have any comments about these items. Sincerely, Roy Bateman Community Development Coordinator cc: Supervisor Judy Arnold Sharon Chan Brian Crawford Jeff Jackson K:\Analysis Of Impediments (AI)\AI & Implementation Documents\Analysis Of Impediments - Final Version As Approved By Bos October 11 2011\Transmittal To HUD.Docx/rb Mailing Address: 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308, San Rafael, California 94903-4157 Office Location: 899 Northgate Drive, Room 408, San Rafael, California Telephone (415) 499-6698 - California Relay Service 711 - Fax (415) 507-4061 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Marin County, it is unlawful to restrict housing choice on the basis of race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, age, and source of income.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring San Francisco Bay
    Restoring San Francisco Bay Amy Hutzel Coastal Conservancy Photo credit: Rick Lewis 150 years of urbanization has altered San Francisco Bay (1850) (1998) We have had a massive impact on the Bay over the last century We’ve filled thousands of acres We’ve dumped garbage IMPORTANCE OF TIDAL MARSH • Growing threat: Climate Change Photo credit: Vivian Reed • Build up of sediment and vegetation takes time. • Higher starting elevation means marshes survive sea-level rise for longer. San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Mission: To raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority was created by Save The Bay and others through 2008 legislation. Its mandate is to propose new public funding mechanisms to voters for Bay marsh restoration; then provide grants to accelerate wetland restoration, flood protection, and public access to Bay. Governing Board comprised of elected officials from each quadrant of the Bay Area; Advisory Committee represents many community interests. It currently has no funding to carry out Photo credit: Vivian Reed its important mission. Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA June 2016 ballot measure to accelerate Bay wetlands restoration $12/parcel/year for 20 years, would generate ~$500 million for restoration projects around the Bay Strong majority of nine-county Bay Area voters are supportive; needs 2/3 support in all nine counties, cumulatively, to pass Examples of Projects Anticipated to be Eligible For Funding: • Eden Landing (Alameda) • Chelsea Wetlands (Contra Costa) • Bel Marin Keys (Marin) • Edgerly Island (Napa) • Yosemite Slough (San Francisco) • Ravenswood Ponds (San Mateo) • Alviso Ponds (Santa Clara) • Benicia Shoreline (Solano) • Skaggs Island (Sonoma) Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA Restoring vital fish, bird and wildlife habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Marsh Creek Watershed Marsh Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the eastern slopes of Mt. Diablo to Suisun Bay in the northern San Francisco Estuary. Its watershed consists of about 100 square miles. The headwaters of Marsh Creek consist of numerous small, intermittent and perennial tributaries within the Black Hills. The creek drains to the northwest before abruptly turning east near Marsh Creek Springs. From Marsh Creek Springs, Marsh Creek flows in an easterly direction entering Marsh Creek Reservoir, constructed in the 1960s. The creek is largely channelized in the lower watershed, and includes a drop structure near the city of Brentwood that appears to be a complete passage barrier. Marsh Creek enters the Big Break area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta northeast of the city of Oakley. Marsh Creek No salmonids were observed by DFG during an April 1942 visual survey of Marsh Creek at two locations: 0.25 miles upstream from the mouth in a tidal reach, and in close proximity to a bridge four miles east of Byron (Curtis 1942).
    [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]
  • The Fishing Industry and Martinez-Benicia Ferry
    The Fishing Industry and Martinez-Benicia Ferry Courtesy of the Contra Costa Historical Society Some of the first Italian immigrants to arrive in Martinez settled in the Grangers' Wharf area and established a fishing village complete with grocery stores, bakeries, barber shop, boarding house, and restaurants. The City of Martinez leased the land to the fishermen for $1.00 a year. Although Alhambra Creek, the creek used by the fishermen, was dredged for accessibility, the boats often needed a high tide to get in and out. The fishing nets, made of linen, required much upkeep. During the fishing season, the linen nets were dipped weekly in a tanning solution, put on racks to dry, and repaired. The Italian fishermen called these tanning vats “karates.” The karates, built by the fishermen's union, are still visible and Courtesy of the Martinez Historical Society can be seen near Alhambra Creek. Fishermen repairing nets. The Grangers' Wharf area. A ferry can be seen in the distance. Courtesy of the Conta Costa Historical Society The Martinez-Benicia Ferry was the first established In 1850, Contra Costa County was established and and longest operating ferry service in the San Francisco required ferry operations to be licensed. During the same Bay area. year, application was made and a license granted to Oliver In 1847, ferry service was established between Coffin to operate a ferry between Martinez and Benicia. Benicia and Martinez by Dr. Robert Semple, the In November of 1854, the Contra Costa County founder of Benicia. The first boats were small sail and Court of Sessions directed that the ferry operating oar-powered scows, and operated on an occasional basis between Martinez and Benicia make half-hourly trips across Carquinez Strait.
    [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]
  • I Regional Oral History Office University of California the Bancroft
    i Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California CHARLES SEIM The Bay Bridge Oral History Project Interviews conducted by Sam Redman in 2012 Copyright © 2013 by the California Department of Transportation This series of interviews was funded through a contract with the Oakland Museum of California, the California Department of Transportation, the California Transportation Commission, and the Bay Area Toll Authority ii Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between the University of California and Charles Seim dated September 4, 2012. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are hereby transferred to and reserved by The California Department of Transportation.
    [Show full text]