Station Locations Are in Italics
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 -
Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips. -
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). -
Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service -
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. -
(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. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
Revegetation Program Installation Report and 201-201 Revegetation Plan
SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT Revegetation Program Installation Report and 201-201 Revegetation Plan Create Report templates San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program DRAFT Year 4 (2014‐2015) Installation Report and Year 5 (2015‐2016) Revegetation Plan Prepared by Jeanne Hammond Olofson Environmental, Inc. 1830 Embarcadero Cove, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94606 For the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 January 26, 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Jeanne Hammond, the Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program Manager and incorporates the hard work done by other OEI biologists including Whitney Thornton, Jeffrey Lewis, Stephanie Chen, Nathan Deakers, Kevin Eng, Anastasia Ennis, Simon Gunner, Nina Hill, Penluck Laulikitnont, Jennifer McBroom, Monica Oey, Tobias Rohmer, Ilana Stein, Tripp McCandlish, as well as contributions from Ingrid Hogle and Drew Kerr. We would also like to thank our partners and contractors for all their hard work contracting, growing and planting including the California Wildlife Foundation, The Watershed Nursery, Shelterbelt, Inc., Hanford ARC, and Aquatic Environ‐ ments. This program would not be possible without the participation of our partner/landowners in‐ cluding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, East Bay Regional Park District, City of San Leandro, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, City of Alameda, City of Palo Alto, County of San Mateo Watershed Protection Services, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, and the Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This report was prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project with support and funding from the following contributors: California Coastal Conservancy California Wildlife Conservation Board (MOU #99‐054‐01 and subsequent) U.S. -
Restoring the Estuary
1 AA FrameworkFramework forfor CollaborativeCollaborative ActionAction onon WetlandsWetlands US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE etlands in the San Francisco Bay Area are range of interests—including resource and regulato- Wamong the most important coastal wintering ry agencies, environmental organizations, business, and migratory stopover areas for millions of water- and agriculture—convened the San Francisco Bay fowl and shorebirds traveling along the Pacific Fly- Joint Venture (SFBJV) in June of 1995. In September way, which stretches from Alaska to South America. 1996, 20 parties representing this diverse wetlands These wetlands also provide economic benefits, constituency signed a working agreement that iden- offer a range of recreational opportunities, and con- tified the goals and objectives of the SFBJV, and the tribute to a higher quality of life for residents in the responsibilities of its board and working commit- densely populated San Francisco Bay Area. They are tees. The agreement also stated that the Implemen- essential aspects of the Bay region’s unique charac- tation Strategy would be developed to guide its par- ter and, along with the creeks that flow into the Bay, ties toward the long-term vision of the restored Bay help to define the vibrant and distinctive identities Estuary. The signatory partners recognized and of communities around the Bay. However, despite endorsed the goals of the North American Waterfowl their value, destruction of these precious natural Management Plan. However, they enlarged the goals assets continues. Today’s wetlands are only a rem- and objectives of the Plan to include benefits not nant, perhaps 20 percent of the vast wetlands seen only for waterfowl, but also for the other wildlife by the first European settlers. -
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.