DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Sausal Creek Watershed Enhancement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Sausal Creek Watershed Enhancement FINAL SAUSAL CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN Sausal Creek “Restoration Reach” in 2003 Prepared by Laurel Marcus and Associates, NewFields River Basin Services, Hydrologic Systems Inc. For Friends of Sausal Creek March 2010 Funding provided by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Francisco Foundation Bay Fund SAUSAL CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN Table of Contents Section page number INTRODUCTION 1 FRIENDS OF SAUSAL CREEK 3 BACKGROUND 3 DESCRIPTION AND HUMAN HISTORY OF THE SAUSAL CREEK WATERSHED 4 HUMAN HISTORY 4 NATURAL RESOURCES 21 GEOLOGY 21 SOILS 31 HYDROLOGY 34 VEGETATION 72 WATER QUALITY 89 AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN HABITATS 105 EVALUATION OF WATERSHED EROSION SITES 143 LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT 174 RELEVANT PLANS, POLICIES, AND PERMITTING 174 INFRASTRUCTURE 180 PARKS 191 SUMMARY OF WATERSHED CONDITIONS 196 EVALUATING WATERSHED STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS 198 PARKING LOT DETENTION 198 UNDERGROUND CISTERN DETENTION 201 EVALUATING WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODEL 212 CONCLUSIONS 245 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 249 INTRODUCTION 249 MAJOR EROSION SITES 249 WATERSHED STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS 250 INVASIVE NON‐NATIVE PLANTS 253 WATER QUALITY 257 AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN HABITATS 260 IMPLEMENTING THE WATERSHED PLAN 264 REFERENCES 275 SAUSAL CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN i List of Figures Figure page number Figure 1 – Regional Location 2 Figure 2 – Elevations 5 Figure 3 – Slopes Greater than 30% 6 Figure 4 Creek Sub‐basins 7 Figure 5: Lumber Mill along Palo Seco Creek in the 1850’s. 9 Figure 6: Joaquin Miller 11 Figure 7: Sausal Creek in the early 1900’s 12 Figure 8: Montclair area in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s 13 Figure 9: Topographic map of the Sausal Creek watershed in 1897 14 Figure 10: Dimond Canyon in the early 1900’s 15 Figure 11: Looking up Park Blvd. into the upper Sausal Creek watershed in the early 1900’s. 16 Figure 12: Topographic map of the Sausal Creek watershed in 1915 17 Figure 13: Topographic map of the Sausal Creek watershed in 1943 18 Figure 14: Topographic map of the Sausal Creek watershed in 1959 19 Figure 15: The Oakland and Antioch Railroad 20 Figure 16: Construction of the Leimert Bridge in 1926 22 Figure 17: Oakmore area in 1926 23 Figure 18: Oakland Museum map of creek channels in the Sausal Creek watershed 24 Figure 19: Regional Geology 25 Figure 20 Geology of the Sausal Creek Watershed 26 Figure 21 Landslide Hazards of Sausal Creek Watershed 30 SAUSAL CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN ii Figure page number Figure 22: Soil Types of the Sausal Creek Watershed 33 Figure 23 Hydrologic Sub‐Basins of the Sausal Creek Watershed 36 Figure 24: Precipitation Gage Locations 36 Figure 25: Upper San Leandro Filter Plant Annual Precipitation Totals 40 Figure 26: Comparison of Annual Precipitation by Elevation 41 Figure 27: Return Frequency Analysis for the 1‐Hour through 6‐Hour Precipitation Duration 43 Figure 28: 24‐Hour Storm Hyetographs, Upper Sausal Creek Watershed 47 Figure 29: 24‐Hour Storm Hyetographs, Middle Sausal Creek Watershed 47 Figure 30: 24‐Hour Storm Hyetographs, Lower Sausal Creek Watershed 48 Figure 31: Schematic of the Sausal Creek EPA SWMM 5.0 existing conditions model 52 Figure 32: October 19, 2009 peak discharge water surface elevation 54 Figure 33: Hourly Precipitation Data at Oakland North and Oakland South Stations 55 for October 19, 2009 Storm Event Figure 34: Schematic Diagram of the Sausal Creek Hydraulic Model 58 Figure 35: Sausal Creek Channel Profile, Station 0 to 8000, Station 8000 to 16000 59‐61 Station 16000 to 23000 Figure 36: Typical high water marks measured in Sausal Creek 62 Figure 37: Comparison of model predicted and measured water surface elevations 63 Figure 38: Comparison of model predicted and measured water surface elevations 65 Figure 39: Comparison of model predicted and measured velocities 66 Figure 40: Sausal Creek Watershed: Hydraulic Profile through Dimond Canyon 68 Figure 41: Existing conditions longitudinal velocity plot 70 Figure 42: Existing conditions longitudinal shear stress plot. 71 Figure 43: Land Use in the Sausal Creek Watershed 74 SAUSAL CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN iii Figure page number Figure 44: Sausal Creek in Dimond Canyon; Cape ivy 77 Figure 45: Cape ivy adjacent to a residential area; Algerian ivy 78 Figure 46: Invasive French broom and Eucalyptus 79 Figure 47: French broom 80 Figure 48: Mapped Invasive Non‐Native Plants n Joaquin Miller Park 82 Figure 49: Monterey Pine and Cypress in Joaquin Miller Park 83 Figure 50: Mixture of vegetation in Joaquin Miller Park 84 Figure 51: Mapped Invasive Non‐Native Plants of Shepherd Canyon Park 86 Figure 52: Monterey Pine and Cypress in Shepherd Canyon Park 87 Figure 53: Mapped Invasive Non‐Native Plants n Dimond Canyon Park 88 Figure 54: Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Sausal Creek Watershed 90 Figure 55: Stream Reaches and Ephemeral Creek Network of the Sausal Creek Watershed 110 Figure 56: Houses line the tributary channels in the Cobbledick Creek sub‐basin 112 Figure 57: Tributary to Cobbledick Creek along Larry Lane (CC1) 113 Figure 58: Palo Seco Creek (PSC1) overflows onto a grassed floodplain 115 Figure 59: Fern Ravine Creek in Joaquin Miller Park 116 Figure 60: Fern Ravine Creek overland flow 117 Figure 61: Palo Seco Creek at beginning of reach PSC‐3 118 Figure 62: Palo Seco Creek in the Jan. 1, 2006 flood event 119 Figure 63: Palo Seco Creek during the Jan. 1, 2006 flood in its rock canyon 120 Figure 64: These photos are examples of the drop structures in Sausal Creek 122 Figure 65: Grade control structures during the Jan.1 2006 flood. 123 Figure 66: Erosion of bay trees along Sausal Creek in Dimond Canyon 124 SAUSAL CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN iv Figure page number Figure 67: California bay laurel trees were trimmed 125 Figure 68: Vortex weir in a small flood in 2003 126 Figure 69: Upstream end of El Centro culvert. 127 Figure 70: White alder along Sausal Creek 129 Figure 71: Sausal Creek in Dimond Park (SC3) 130 Figure 72: Sausal Creek in downstream area of Dimond Park 131 Figure 73: Sausal Creek downstream of Hwy. 580 132 Figure 74: Sausal Creek at Barry Place and E. 27th St 133 Figure 75: Sausal Creek at Logan Road. 134 Figure 76: Sausal Creek at Foothill Blvd 135 Figure 77 Storm drain System in Sausal 145 Figure 78: Key to Watershed Maps 146 Figure 79: Storm Drain Map 1 147 Figure 80: Storm Drain Map 2 148 Figure 81: Storm Drain Map 3 149 Figure 82: Storm Drain Map 4 150 Figure 83: Storm Drain Map 5 151 Figure 84: Storm Drain Map 6 152 Figure 85: Erosion at storm drain outlet 155 Figure 86: House built over creek channel 156 Figure 87: Ephemeral creek channels adjacent and under house 157 Figure 88: Erosion of ephemeral creek from urban runoff 158 Figure 89: Lining creeks with cement or rock riprap 159 SAUSAL CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN v Figure page number Figure 90: Joaquin Miller Park Trails and Major Erosion Sites 161 Figure 91: Erosion site #2 164 Figure 92: Trail erosion (red arrows) flowing directly into Palo Seco Creek 165 Figure 93: Cinderella Creek with culverted crossing at Sunset Trail 166 Figure 94: Cinderella Trail is a major erosion site 167 Figure 95: The headwaters of this small creek were clear‐cut of Eucalyptus 168 Figure 96: One of many temporary and ineffective repair projects done at Castle Drive 169 Figure 97: Sunset Trail crossing of small ephemeral creek below Castle Drive 170 Figure 98: After over 10 years of erosion and several ineffective repairs 171 Figure 99: Two examples of ineffective trail crossing repairs 172 Figure 100: Sanitary Sewer System Map 1 182 Figure 101: Sanitary Sewer System Map2 183 Figure 102: Sanitary Sewer System Map 3 184 Figure 103: Sanitary Sewer System Map 4 185 Figure 104: Sanitary Sewer System Map 5 186 Figure 105: Sanitary Sewer System Map 6 187 Figure 106: Sanitary sewer overflow during the January 1, 2006 flood 188 Figure 107: Manhole cover blown off the sanitary sewer 189 Figure 108: Main sewer line in the bed of Sausal Creek 190 Figure 109: Public Parks in Sausal Creek watershed 192 Figure 110: Watershed Stormwater Improvements 199 Figure 111 Watershed Stormwater Improvements: Rain barrels 200 Figure 112: Water cistern 202 SAUSAL CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN vi Figure page number Figure 113: Rain barrels 203 Figure 114: Biofiltration units for parking lots 204 Figure 115: Location along Skyline Blvd. where a biofiltration facility 206 Figure 116: Biofiltration improvements in residential areas of Portland, Oregon 207 Figure 117: Bioswales on the edges of parking lots. 208 Figure 118: Biofiltration units in commercial area of Portland, Oregon 209 Figure 119: Examples of biofiltration facilities in residential areas of Seattle 210 Figure 120: Permeable pavement 211 Figure 121: Existing Conditions and Proposed Conditions 220 Demonstrating the Rain Barrel Modeling Technique in EPA SWMM 5.0 Figure 122: Existing Conditions and Proposed Conditions Demonstrating the 221 Upper Watershed Detention Basin Modeling Technique in EPA SWMM 5.0 Figure 123: Existing Conditions and Proposed Conditions Demonstrating the 222 In‐line Storage Basin Modeling Technique in EPA SWMM 5.0 Figure 124: Existing conditions longitudinal shear stress plot. 227 Figure 125: Longitudinal water surface elevation profile under existing (E) 229 and Scenario 1 (P) hydrologic conditions for the 1‐year recurrence interval peak discharge Figure 126: Longitudinal velocity profile under existing (E) and Scenario 1 (P) 231 hydrologic conditions for the 1‐year recurrence interval peak discharge Figure 127: Longitudinal
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]
  • 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]
  • Annotated Checklist of the Diplura (Hexapoda: Entognatha) of California
    Zootaxa 3780 (2): 297–322 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3780.2.5 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DEF59FEA-C1C1-4AC6-9BB0-66E2DE694DFA Annotated Checklist of the Diplura (Hexapoda: Entognatha) of California G.O. GRAENING1, YANA SHCHERBANYUK2 & MARYAM ARGHANDIWAL3 Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6077. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract The first checklist of California dipluran taxa is presented with annotations. New state and county records are reported, as well as new taxa in the process of being described. California has a remarkable dipluran fauna with about 8% of global richness. California hosts 63 species in 5 families, with 51 of those species endemic to the State, and half of these endemics limited to single locales. The genera Nanojapyx, Hecajapyx, and Holjapyx are all primarily restricted to California. Two species are understood to be exotic, and six dubious taxa are removed from the State checklist. Counties in the central Coastal Ranges have the highest diversity of diplurans; this may indicate sampling bias. Caves and mines harbor unique and endemic dipluran species, and subterranean habitats should be better inventoried. Only four California taxa exhibit obvious troglomorphy and may be true cave obligates. In general, the North American dipluran fauna is still under-inven- toried. Since many taxa are morphologically uniform but genetically diverse, genetic analyses should be incorporated into future taxonomic descriptions.
    [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]
  • Community Participation and Creek Restoration in the East Bay of San Francisco
    Louise A. Mozingo Community Participation and Creek Restoration and Recreation, had been inspired by an article of Bay Area Community Participation and historian Grey Brechin on the possibilities of daylighting creeks Creek Restoration in the East in Sonoma County north of San Francisco (Schemmerling, 2003). Doug Wolfe, a landscape architect for the City of Bay of San Francisco Berkeley, proposed that a short culverted stretch of Strawberry Creek crossing a new neighborhood park in Berkeley then culverted, be opened or “daylit.” As a first step in proposing Louise A. Mozingo the unprecedented idea, Wolfe named the new open space Strawberry Creek Park. As he later reported, this “lead to the ABSTRACT question ‘Where is this creek?’ My answer was that it was ‘Twenty feet down and waiting’” (Wolfe, 1994, 2). Controversial The creeks of the upper East Bay of San Francisco in the extreme, Wolfe found political support from Carol have been the location of two decades of precedent Schemmerling, and David Brower, founder of Friends of the setting creek restoration activities. This discussion will Earth, and a city council member. With vocal citizen support review the essential role of both citizen activism and at public meetings the radical concept prevailed. The notion NGOs in the advent of a restoration approach to creek that a reopened creek could be an asset rather than a hazard management. Beginning with small pilot projects to proved to be a lasting inspiration (Schemmerling; Wolfe, 2-3). “daylight” a culverted creek and spray paint signs on street drain inlets, participation in the restoration of the Also in Berkeley, a small but telling community education act East Bay creeks has evolved into a complex layering took place on city streets.
    [Show full text]
  • Point Isabel
    bulldozed as fl at as a pancake, which greatly El Cerrito Historical Society expanded the P O Box 304, El Cerrito, CA 94530 footprint of Pt. Isabel. (This and [email protected] several other projects around the Bay helped Vol. 24 create support for Summer 2008 Shooting trap (l) and an archery “Ham Shoot” (r) at the MacAteer-Pe- No. 3 The Forge the San Pablo Avenue Sportsman’s Club on Pt. Isabel tris Act of 1965, The Offi cial Publication of the El Cerrito Historical Society, Copyright © 2008 which established the BCDC, or Bay Conservation and Development Commission). Santa Fe, of course, built a rail spur to the development to provide a direct connection to their transcontinen- tal mainline. Once these preparations were complete, Santa Fe sat back and waited for the buyers OUR NEXT MEETING: 12 NOON SUNDAY, JULY 20TH to line up. However, the fi rst lot was not sold until 1963, when the old Co-op grocery store chain PICNIC AT HUBER PARK ON TERRACE DRIVE bought a lot for a large warehouse it needed. In the early 1970s the Postal Service chose the site for the huge bulk mail facility that still operates today. A condition of the building permit for the bulk mail facility was that the Federal Government President’s Message had to provide shoreline access for the public. Once the public saw the fantastic vistas available Our next meeting, at Noon on Sunday, July 20th in Huber Park, will be our annual pot- from the shoreline the popularity of the area grew rapidly.
    [Show full text]
  • Message from the Director
    • R EPORT• TO• THE• C OMMUNITY•••••F ISCAL• Y EARS• 2002• & • 2003• MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is proud to present this report detailing the District’s many activities for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. We want you, the community we serve, to know about all the work we do District to protect Alameda County from flooding and the efforts • taken to protect and enhance our natural resources. Preparing and distributing a report like this allows us to reach people in the most meaningful way—by sharing the stories and images of design, construction, and maintenance projects completed in each flood control zone. In addition, a summary of District responsibilities and finances is provided for public review. Conservation Donald J. LaBelle, Director • D ISTRICT GOALS ater When the Flood Control District was established in 1949, its first concern was to reduce regional W flooding. Early in the District’s history, engineers and planners realized that • flood control infrastructure could, in some instances, provide recreation opportunities. Today, Alameda Creek Trail, Lake Elizabeth, and other trails, and parks, and lakes are a testament to the District’s forethought. • The District has continued to maintain and repair infrastructure built as long as 50 years ago while responding to flood control needs created by new development throughout the area. Over the last 20 years, the District has turned even greater attention to environmental concerns. This includes repairing local creeks Control • damaged by stormwater flows, returning channelized waterways to more natural settings, adding parks and learning centers in watershed areas, working to prevent stormwater pollution, and educating the public about individual and collective roles we can all take to create a healthier environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Spartina Project (Cordgrass)
    SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT 2612-A 8th Street ● Berkeley ● California 94710 ● (510) 548-2461 Preserving native wetlands PEGGY OLOFSON PROJECT DIRECTOR [email protected] Date: July 1, 2011 INGRID HOGLE MONITORING PROGRAM To: Jennifer Krebs, SFEP MANAGER [email protected] From: Peggy Olofson ERIK GRIJALVA FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGER Subject: Report of Work Completed Under Estuary 2100 Grant #X7-00T04701 [email protected] DREW KERR The State Coastal Conservancy received an Estuary 2100 Grant for $172,325 to use FIELD OPERATIONS ASSISTANT MANAGER for control of non-native invasive Spartina. Conservancy distributed the funds [email protected] through sub-grants to four Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) partners, including Cali- JEN MCBROOM fornia Wildlife Foundation, San Mateo Mosquito Abatement District, Friends of CLAPPER RAIL MONITOR‐ ING MANAGER Corte Madera Creek Watershed, and State Parks and Recreation. These four ISP part- [email protected] ners collectively treated approximately 90 net acres of invasive Spartina for two con- MARILYN LATTA secutive years, furthering the baywide eradication of invasive Spartina restoring and PROJECT MANAGER 510.286.4157 protecting many hundreds of acres of tidal marsh (Figure 1, Table 1). In addition to [email protected] treatment work, the grant funds also provided laboratory analysis of water samples Major Project Funders: collected from treatment sites where herbicide was applied, to confirm that water State Coastal Conser‐ quality was not degraded by the treatments. vancy American Recovery & ISP Partners and contractors conducted treatment work in accordance with Site Spe- Reinvestment Act cific Plans prepared by ISP (Grijalva et al. 2008; National Oceanic & www.spartina.org/project_documents/2008-2010_site_plans_doc_list.htm), and re- Atmospheric Admini‐ stration ported in the 2008-2009 Treatment Report (Grijalva & Kerr, 2011; U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifers Underlying the San Lorenzo and San Leandro Areas of the East Bay Plain, Alameda County, California
    Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifers UnderlyingHydrogeology the and San Geochemistry Lorenzo and San of Aquifers Leandro Areas ofUnderlying the East Bay the Plain,San Lorenzo Alameda and County, San Leandro California Areas of the East Bay Plain, Alameda County, California Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4259 U.S.Water-Resources DEPARTMENT Investigations OF THE INTERIOR Report 02-4259 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Prepared in cooperation with the EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT and ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Prepared in cooperation with the EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT and ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifers Underlying the San Lorenzo and San Leandro Areas of the East Bay Plain, Alameda County, California By John A Izbicki, James W. Borchers, David A. Leighton, Justin Kulongoski, Latoya Fields, Devin L. Galloway, and Robert L. Michel U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4259 Prepared in cooperation with the EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT and ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 3006-07 Sacramento, California 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: District Chief U.S. Geological
    [Show full text]
  • Ecologic Races of Song Sparrows in the San Francisco Bay Region, Part
    VOLUME 50 NOVEMBER-DECEMBER. 1948 NUMBER 6 ECOLOGIC RACES OF SONG SPARROWS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION PART II. GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION By JOE T. MARSHALL, JR. This is the second part of a study of variation in the Song Sparrow, Passeretla (M&@&r) melo&a, in the counties surrounding San Francisco, San Pablo and Suisun bays in west-central California. Within this small area four races are resident ; they are more or less isolated spatially from one another, and the area of each presents a dis- tinctive kind of environment either of fresh-water type, brackish marsh or salt marsh. These several “habitats” are equally characteristic of the niche utilized by individuals of the speciesas a whole, on the mainland at least. The present study is an outgrowth of Joseph Grinnell’s interest in the problem and the resulting accumulation at the MU- scum of Vertebrate Zoology of a large collection of specimens from the bay region. The previous section of this work (Marshall, 1948) was devoted to a discussion of the different kinds of habitats occupied by Song Sparrows and the distribution of these habitats such that a map was constructed showing the area1 arrangement of actual popu- lations of the birds in this area (Zoc. cti.: fig. 42). This map shows that each race is divided into several populations by geographic barriers, and it is to these populations that we now turn in presenting the ensuing information on morphologic variation. They represent the largest units within which no geographic variation can be found, and it is , convenient therefore to combine all samples from any one population and present the color and size attributes of each in.a form which will make it possible to detect gradients of change in these characters from one population to another and through linear series of populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Trolley Poles in Oakland
    VOL. 37, NO. 1 SPRING 2017 Remnants of the past: trolley poles in Oakland By Daniel Levy Although the Key System’s Bay Bridge trains have been gone for almost 60 years and their local streetcars almost 70, many vestiges of their existence still linger LEVY DANIEL around Oakland. Look closely and you’ll see oddly-angled buildings, houses, driveways and streets built on private rights of way where the trains ran. However, this evidence is mere- ly circumstantial. For hard evidence, your best bet is to spot the many trolley poles sprinkled around the city. Trolley poles held up the electric catenary wires that supplied power to the streetcars that roamed Oakland’s streets. Many poles survived because they were converted to street lights or simply because of neglect. Once you get an eye for one, they are quite easy to identify. In the photograph below, you will see the leiMeRt bRiDGe one of four poles still remaining at 3rd boasts trolley poles converted into lighting standards. Avenue and East 18th Street for the 18 ritt Dam, and up Third Avenue and Park supplied to this street light externally since line. That line ran on Grand Avenue to Boulevard to Oakmore. The first giveaway it was not built with internal wires. downtown Oakland, across the Lake Mer- that this is a trolley pole is the cap on top Similar to the Leimert Bridge, since there that helps keep rainwater out of it. The sec- are still so many poles on San Pablo, you ond indicator is the absence of a bolted can see their placement directly across the footing, which most modern light poles street from one another, so that a wire have.
    [Show full text]