DOCSLIB.ORG

2017B Hayward Creek Map 113010.Ai

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017B Hayward Creek Map 113010.Ai 12'30" 122˚07'30" For adjoining area, see Creek & Watershed Map of Oakland & Berkeley POINTS OF INTEREST SSanan LLeandroeandro k 1. Arrowhead Marsh (Martin Luther King Jr. e e r EXPLANATION Regional Shoreline). This tidal marsh is formed BBayay Creek Creek EElmhurstl Creek C on the delta of San Leandro Creek (see reverse mh urs Creeks, watershed area ≥ 0.2 km2 side). Although small, it is located along the Pacific t C y re e e l flyway and many migratory birds stop here to feed. k l a Underground culverts Take the boardwalk for a good look at native VValley marsh vegetation including pickleweed and 5 and storm drains ≥ 24" diameter cordgrass. Compare this original marsh to the s 1998 restored marsh stretching south from the s 1 a Engineered channels parking lot. r GGrass 2. Root Park. Access to San Leandro Creek in Artificial bodies of water downtown San Leandro was created in 1996 with the construction of a viewing platform and walkway that leads Present watersheds to the creek. This tiny park provides a shady haven amidst the urban bustle. r. Bay fill CCr. 3. Chabot Park. This shady park is along a natural bend of s Modern tidal marsh San Leandro Creek, just below the Lake Chabot dam. Steelhead ri r k o formed after ~1850 trout once spawned in this stretch of creek. To this day, there are e NNorris e occasional reports of large trout appearing here, especially in wetter r CCreekreek C Historical Features 1800-1900 years. 3 t s r 4. Anthony Chabot Regional Park. Anthony Chabot built this dam u Creeks, buried or drained, h and reservoir on San Leandro Creek in 1874-76 to provide drinking e dashed where location uncertain n o water for the City of Oakland. The dam, located at the west end of t SStonehurst Creek LLeandro 2 the reservoir, is earth-fill construction with a clay core that was built eandro Shoreline or marsh boundary up of layers compacted by teams of horses. SSanan 5. Grass Valley. Along this creek observe the interaction of Water spreads over ground geological and biological processes in the creek bed. The moist soil k e near the stream allows large trees to grow. But, during floods, creek e Lakes and ponds r k e Creek Creek bank erosion can undermine the roots of these trees causing them to C re fall into the creek bed. The log-dammed pools then provide good CCreek Tidal marsh and sloughs habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. n o y n Willow grove 6. San Leandro Shoreline Trail. From the San Leandro Marina, a CCanyon l walk south on the San Leandro Shoreline Trail, cross the Estudillo l u Canal, and pass the golf course built over former marshlands to Cull y C reach the San Leandro Shoreline Marshlands (0.8 mi). You are ll 4 e walking on a dike that cut off this portion of the original marshlands KKelly from tidal flows. Tidal flow is now restored to 300 acres in a major marsh reconstruction project. Continue on to the Lewelling Boulevard k entrance (1.7 mi). e e k r e e 9 CCreek r 7. Fairmont Hospital Springs. Prior to 1868, a spring, known to CCreek the rancheros as derramaderos (overflow), was located near the 7 present hospital site along the Hayward fault. To solve an ownership en dispute between Don Estudillo on the north and Don Castro on the flows spill into the Ed south, the governor of Mexico designated the spring as Indian land. original Sulphur Creek 42'30" k The hospital now stands upon the site of the Indian village. An bed. e ek e e earthquake in 1868 shut off the flow of water, but there are still many r is r CCreek oll CCreek small seeps in this neighborhood. 15. Sulphur Creek Nature HHollis Center. Sulphur Creek is named 8. Meek Park. The Meeks built their estate along San Lorenzo for the sulfur-rich spring that feeds Creek in 1868 and planted the grounds in orchards. Here Mr. Bing, into this creek. Visit the nature 10 center for live animals, educational Meek's Chinese orchardist, developed his famous cherry. The displays, and a lovely creek to enjoy. w concrete channel of San Lorenzo Creek behind the estate was built o r in 1962 as a federal flood control project. What a lovely background y CCrow LLorenzoo e r l 16. Memorial Park. This is the k e the original creek must have been! l n e z downstream trailhead for a beautiful a o e VValley 3-mile loop up Ward Creek to East r Creek 9. Cull Canyon Regional Recreation Area. Cull Creek was C dammed in 1963 to control flooding downstream. The creek now Avenue Park, along the ridge, returning SSanan down the south fork of Ward Creek. deposits its sediment in the reservoir. The sediment must be reek periodically removed to maintain flood storage capacity. CCreek 17. Oro Loma Marsh (Hayward Regional 10. Bay Trees Park. Park at the lower lot to view the junction of Shoreline). From the end of Grant Ave, walk 11 PPalomares Crow Creek and Cull Creek. Both flow in concrete channels here. the trail west, then south past the wastewater a l Note that the far channel, Crow Creek, is floored with sand and treatment plant and across the Bockman Canal 6 o (0.5 mi). Oro Loma Marsh is a portion of the m debris deposited by the creek during high flows, whereas the Cull a original mile-wide wetlands that stretched from the r Creek channel is fairly clean. The sediment of Cull Creek is caught e EEstudillostudillo t s San Mateo Bridge to the San Leandro Marina. These o by the reservoir upstream. Walk upstream past the picnic area to see k b o e wetlands contained both tidal marshes and ponds, CCanal r the dam spillway. a t e a r such as Crystal Salt Pond. Tidal flow, for decades n h s a a CCreek Chabot l C 11. Castro Valley Creek Restoration. This 600-ft reach was one of blocked by dikes like the one you are walking on, was CCastro restored in 1998 by breaching this dike and another to the the few remaining natural reaches of Castro Valley Creek, but bank zo ek east. To see the breach and watch the tides come in and ren re zo erosion threatened the businesses on either side. In 1994 the County Lo CCreek n out, continue south 0.4 mi past the Bockman Canal. 8 re of Alameda chose a unique approach and stabilized the banks with SSanan o crib walls of redwood timbers. These walls have allowed streamside 12 LLorenzo vegetation to grow and animal habitat to be maintained. Downstream 18. Cogswell Marsh (Hayward Regional Shoreline). From the toward the new Castro Valley library, boulders stabilizing the creek end of Winton Avenue walk south on the Hayward Shoreline Trail. banks mark a more recent project, completed in 2009. Here, the Past Mt. Trashmore, a landfill, you will see tidal marshlands that were county uncovered a 300-ft culverted reach, constructed a new once diked for salt evaporation ponds, but now are restored. In Cogswell CCreek n r marsh (0.5 mi) artificial islands provide refuge and nesting sites for a e channel, and planted it with native species. SSan e shorebirds and salt marsh harvest mice. For maps and information on k 12. Carlos Bee Park. Enjoy a shady stroll along Chabot Creek at wildlife, continue south to the Hayward Shoreline Interpretive Center on this narrow park tucked between the creek and the hillside. The Breakwater Ave (2.6 mi). creek, here freed of its artificial confines, rushes over bedrock 19. Hayward Marsh. This former salt pond has been restored to a brackish water 14 cascades through a shady gulch. At the eastern end of the park the 13 r 15 tidal marsh. Its fresh water source is clean, treated sewage effluent from the City of u trail descends to the water. lph CCreek Hayward! u re SSulphur ek 13. De Anza Park. Spanish explorers who camped here on the banks of San Lorenzo Creek in the late 1700s found a reliable water 20. Garin & Dry Creek Pioneer Regional Parks. Trails lead up Dry Creek, cross the ridge, source lined with alders, cottonwoods, and willows. Climb down the then drop down into the canyon of Zeile Creek to Garin Woods (4-mile loop). Both creeks are in fairly steps beneath a canopy of mature trees to view the creek. This is the natural condition here in the hills, but flow into storm drains and canals across the flatlands. Two small final natural reach of the creek before it flows under Foothill Boule- ponds, the Newt Pond (0.4 mi) and Jordon Pond (0.3 mi) were created by damming Dry Creek. S A vard and into a concrete channel built in 1954 for flood control. N 1 1 0 1 MILE 2 l 14. Sulphur Creek Diversion. From its beginnings in 1852, a n WWard a a downtown Hayward was frequently flooded by storm waters of 1000 0 1000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET rd CCanal F 40' Sulphur Creek. Culverting of the creek in the 1920s alleviated some 1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER R of the problem. Then, in 1962, the County of Alameda rerouted the A BBockmanockman 16 creek into San Lorenzo Creek at 2nd Street. Now only the highest SCALE N CCreek C CCreekreek re I e S k C r 17 hu O ulp SSulphur CREEK & WATERSHED MAP B A of Y Hayward & San Leandro By Janet M.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bicycle Master Plan in 2007
    CITY OF HAYWARD BICYCLE MASTER PLAN October 2007 Prepared by Alta Planning + Design This page left blank intentionally. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1. Why Bicycling?.............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2. Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan ...........................................................................................1-1 1.3. Summary of Changes between 1997 and 2006 Plans ...............................................................1-2 1.4. Plan Contents...............................................................................................................................1-4 2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2. Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................................................2-1 2.1. New Facilities...............................................................................................................................2-1 2.2. Bicycle Commuting and Recreational Opportunities ...............................................................2-1 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................................3-1 3.1. Setting...........................................................................................................................................3-1
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Street, Hayward, CA 94541 (510) 881-6700
    Minutes – July 25, 2011 – Page 1. Hayward Area Recreation and Park District 1099 “E” Street, Hayward, CA 94541 (510) 881-6700 M I N U T E S March 26, 2012 MEETING The Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District was called to order by President Waespi at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, March 26, 2012 in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 1099 ‘E’ Street, Hayward. BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ President Waespi announced that the Board of Directors would adjourn the CLOSED SESSION meeting to hold a Closed Session for a meeting with designated representatives to discuss negations with the SEIU 1021 Bargaining Unit of the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, followed by a meeting with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation in the case of the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District and Alameda County regarding 16301 and 16635 E. 14th Street, San Leandro, CA. RECONVENE TO The Board Meeting reconvened at 7:01 p.m. and was followed by the REGULAR SESSION Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call. PLEDGE TO FLAG The Pledge of Allegiance was followed by Roll Call. PRESENT Directors: Andrade, Hodges, Jameson, Pereira, Waespi Staff: Ely, Giammona, Gouveia, Lepore, Hamid CLOSED SESSION President Waespi reported that the Board of Directors held a Closed Session ANNOUNCEMENT at 5:30 p.m. on this date as reported above at which no reportable action was taken. MONTHLY VOLUNTEER President Waespi postponed presentation of the Monthly Volunteer RECOGNITION AWARD Recognition Award to the Monday, April 9, 2012 Board of Directors’ meeting, as the recipient of the February 2012 award, Mr.
    [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]
  • Bart at Twenty: Land Use and Development Impacts
    ffional Development BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with research assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich July 1995 University of California at Berkeley - 1 BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with Research Assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich This paper was produced with support provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through the University of California Transportation Center. University of California at Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development Table of Contents ONE: BART at 20: An Analysis of Land Use Impacts 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 TWO: Research Approach and Data Sources 3 THREE: Employment and Population Changes in BART and Non-BART Areas 6 3.1. Population Changes 6 3.2. Employment Changes 3.3. Population Densities 15 3.4. Employment Densities 15 3.5. Summary 20 FOUR: Land Use Changes Over Time and by Corridor 21 4.1. General Land-Use Trends 23 4.2. Pre-BART versus Post-BART 25 4.3. Early versus Later BART 30 4.4. Trends in Non-Residential Densities 33 4.4. Summary 37 FIVE: Land-Use Changes by Station Classes 38 5.1. Grouping Variables 38 5.2. Classification 38 5.3. Station Classes 41 5.4. Trends in Residential and Non-Residential Growth Among Station Classes 44 5.5. Percent Growth in Early- versus Later-BART Years Among Station Classes 46 5.6. Trends in Non-Residential Densities Among Station Classes 46 SLX: Matched-Pair Comparisons of Land-Use Changes near BART Stations Versus Freeway Interchanges 51 6.1.
    [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]
  • Community Profile a Guide to the Unincorporated Communities of Alameda County: Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview and San Lorenzo
    asz 2008 Community Profile A guide to the unincorporated communities of Alameda County: Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview and San Lorenzo Eden Area Livability Initiative: Integrated Strategic Vision & Plan First Edition February 20, 2008 Prepared by the Office of Supervisor Nate Miley, District 4, Alameda County Board of Supervisors L. Wicks i Last saved on 3/11/2008 L. Wicks ii Last saved on 3/11/2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART PAGE FOREWORD v INTRODUCTION: EDEN AREA LIVABILITY INITIATIVE 1 Mission, Goals, Objectives , and Background PURPOSE , STRUCTURE & DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS 2 LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES 3 THRIVE ELEMENTS OF LIVABILITY 4-5 EXPLANATION OF DATA PART 1 6 Communities & Zip Codes Census data = Census Designated Place Community Descriptions Explanation of data, maps and boundaries of data comparison GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES & MAPS PART 2 7- 12 HISTORY OF AREA PART 3 13-29 DEMOGRAPHICS PART4 30-58 Population 30 Percentage of Population, by age in Alameda County and in the Eden Area 31 Race 32-34 Language Spoken at Home 35 Educational Attainment 36-37 Grandparents as Caregivers 38 Disability Status of the Civilian non-institutionalized population 38 Nativity and Place of Birth 39-40 Employment Statistics 41 Occupation 42-44 Occupation Trends & Industries of Employment 46 Common Industries for Females 47 Common Occupations for Females 47 Income 48 Poverty 48 Housing 49-57 Household by Type Housing Occupancy and Tenure Housing Stock and Ownership Year Structure Built Year householder moved into unit Housing Value Selected monthly owner Costs as a percentage of Household Income in 1999 Gross rent Gross rent as a percentage of Household Income in 19 L.
    [Show full text]