DOCSLIB.ORG

Zone 7 Trail Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zone 7 Trail Project Admin Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Zone 7 Trail Project Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, Alameda County, CA Prepared For: Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 4444 East Ave Livermore, California 94550 Contact: Mathew Fuzie [email protected] Prepared By: WRA, Inc. 2169-G East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California 94901 Contact: Jonathan Hidalgo [email protected] Date: April 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 PROJECT TITLE .................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS .................................................................................... 1 2.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER ............................................................................. 1 2.4 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................... 1 2.5 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING ............................................................................ 2 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT ........................................................... 2 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 7 3.2 PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 7 3.3 CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................. 8 3.4 PROJECT–RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS ............................................10 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................................................................................... 11 4.1 AESTHETICS ......................................................................................................................13 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ......................................................................17 4.3 AIR QUALITY .....................................................................................................................21 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................25 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................49 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .........................................................................................................55 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..............................................................................63 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .....................................................................................67 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................................................73 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................79 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ..............................................................................................85 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................87 4.15 RECREATION ...................................................................................................................89 4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .......................................................................................91 4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................95 4.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................97 4.19 MANDATORY AND FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................. 101 5.0 REPORT PREPARERS AND PERSONS/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ............................................................. 103 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 104 6.1 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 104 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Zone 7 Trail Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2019 i Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Biological Communities in the Project Site…………………………………...26 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Regional Location Map ............................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of the Project Site........................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Views of the Project Site ............................................................................................. 5 Figure 4. Views of Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................ 6 Figure 5. Biological Communities Located within the Project Site .............................................27 Figure 6. Special-Status Plants Documented within 5 miles of the Project Site .........................33 Figure 7. Special-Status Wildlife Documented within 5 miles of the Project Site ........................40 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Biological Resources Assessment Appendix B Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Appendix C Cultural Report Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Zone 7 Trail Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2019 ii Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments APN Assessor’s Parcel Number BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Plan Bay Trail San Francisco Bay Trail BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BMP Best Management Practice Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Clean Air Plan CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations DPM diesel particulate matter EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG Greenhouse Gas H:V horizontal:vertical I-580 Interstate 580 ISP Invasive Spartina Project LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mg/kg milligrams per kilogram MGD million gallons per day NOx nitrogen oxides Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Zone 7 Trail Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2019 iii Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OS Open Space PM2.5 or 10 Particulate Matter (fine or respirable) PRC Public Resource Code ROG reactive organic gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SFRWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Control Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TACs Toxic Air Contaminants USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United State Geological Survey VA Hospital Livermore Division – Veteran’s Administration Palo Alto Health Care System WRA WRA, Inc. Zone 7 Zone 7 Water Agency Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Zone 7 Trail Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2019 iv Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD). This IS/MND evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the Zone 7 Trail Project (proposed Project). The LARPD is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this IS/MND to address the impacts of implementing the proposed Project. The purpose of the Project is to connect two existing LARPD trails within Sycamore Grove Park. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Title Zone 7 Trail Project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (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]
  • 1 Collections
    A. andersonii A. Gray SANTA CRUZ MANZANITA San Mateo Along Skyline Blvd. between Gulch Road and la Honda Rd. (A. regismontana?) Santa Cruz Along Empire Grade, about 2 miles north of its intersection with Alba Grade. Lat. N. 37° 07', Long. 122° 10' W. Altitude about 2550 feet. Santa Cruz Aong grade (summit) 0.8 mi nw Alba Road junction (2600 ft elev. above and nw of Ben Lomond (town)) - Empire Grade Santa Cruz Near Summit of Opal Creek Rd., Big Basin Redwood State Park. Santa Cruz Near intersection of Empire Grade and Alba Grade. ben Lomond Mountain. Santa Cruz Along China Grade, 0.2 miles NW of its intersection with the Big Basin-Saratoga Summit Rd. Santa Cruz Nisene Marks State Park, Aptos Creek watershed; under PG&E high-voltage transmission line on eastern rim of the creek canyon Santa Cruz Along Redwood Drive 1.5 miles up (north of) from Monte Toyon Santa Cruz Miller's Ranch, summit between Gilroy and Watsonville. Santa Cruz At junction of Alba Road and Empire Road Ben Lomond Ridge summit Santa Cruz Sandy ridges near Bonny Doon - Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz 3 miles NW of Santa Cruz, on upper UC Santa Cruz campus, Marshall Fields Santa Cruz Mt. Madonna Road along summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Between Lands End and Manzanitas School. Lat. N. 37° 02', Long. 121° 45' W; elev. 2000 feet Monterey Moro Road, Prunedale (A. pajaroensis?) A. auriculata Eastw. MT. DIABLO MANZANITA Contra Costa Between two major cuts of Cowell Cement Company (w face of ridge) - Mount Diablo, Lime Ridge Contra Costa Immediately south of Nortonville; 37°57'N, 121°53'W Contra Costa Top Pine Canyon Ridge (s-facing slope between the two forks) - Mount Diablo, Emmons Canyon (off Stone Valley) Contra Costa Near fire trail which runs s from large spur (on meridian) heading into Sycamore Canyon - Mount Diablo, Inner Black Hills Contra Costa Off Summit Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Good News, Bad News
    The Newsletter of the Santa Clara Audubon Society Jan. - Feb. 2004 Good news, bad news Young Audubon BurrowingOwls take a big hit; promisingnew California State Park Rangers wlzale-watclziug restorationgroup convenes - all in one day Association filed the petition to excursion list the Burrowing Owl. We by Craig Breon knew we faced an uphill battle , Sec Page 5 Executive Director but we also believed we had the scientific information needed to What a day - it would be tough to imagine one of greater meet the applicable legal standard- "threatened with extinction contrasts. On the morning of December 4th the California Fish overall, or a significant portion of its range" in the State and Game Commission voted 4-0 to reject our petition to list the (emphasis added). , Burrowing Owl as a Threatened or Endangered Species in the We could show that the owl was extirpated (i.e., locally state, ending yet another chapter in the sad demise of Santa extinct) or nearly extirpated in 10-20% of its historic range in Clara County 's Burrowing Owl population . On that same California. We could also show that the owl was in severe, or afternoon of December 4th the California Coastal Commission at least significant , decline in another 40 % of its range . convened the first meeting of the South Bay Salt Pond Nonetheless, we also admitted from the beginning that the Restoration Stakeholders Forum, designed to help guide the Burrowing Owl retains healthy populations in several areas­ restoration of 16,000 acres of wetlands and associated habitats in particular the Imperial Valley , where more than 70% of the in the South Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Resource Plan
    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN MEMBER AGENCIES: Alameda Albany PUBLIC RELEASE Berkeley Dublin DRAFT Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency October 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Alameda County’s Watersheds: Approach and Characterization ................................ 5 1.3 Water Quality Issues And Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 5 1.4 Organization of the SWRP .......................................................................................... 6 2. Coordination and Collaboration ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 Entities Involved in Plan Development ........................................................................ 7 2.2 Coordination of Cooperating Entities and Stakeholders .............................................. 7 2.3 Relationship with Existing Planning Documents .......................................................... 7 2.3.1 San Francisco
    [Show full text]
  • State of California the Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife
    State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife Negative Declaration for the San Antonio Valley Ecological Reserve Draft Land Management Plan February 2015 San Antonio Valley ER Negative Declaration for Draft LMP February 2015 1 San Antonio Valley Ecological Reserve Draft Land Management Plan I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Acquisition The purposes for acquisition of this property were to protect sensitive plant and animal species, maintain valuable habitat linkages between adjacent public and private lands and to provide research, educational and limited recreational opportunities for the public. B. Acquisition History The 2,899-acre San Antonio Valley Ecological Reserve (SAVER) (formerly a portion of the Hurner Ranch) was identified as a first priority acquisition in the Mount Hamilton Conceptual Area Protection Plan written by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in 2001. The property was initially purchased and held by The Nature Conservancy until acquisition authority was approved by the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) in May 2007, and conveyed to the State on August 21 of that year. Funding sources from the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Fund (Proposition 40) were used to purchase the property. In November 2012, the 383-acre Expansion 1 was approved by WCB and acquisition was funded by the same (Proposition 40) source. Deed was transferred to CDFW in June 2013. Expansion brought the total acreage of SAVER to 3,282 acres. C. Purpose of this Management Plan The purpose of this Management Plan is to: 1) Guide management of habitats, species, and programs described herein to achieve CDFW’s mission to protect and enhance wildlife values, and provide public recreation opportunities where appropriate and feasible.
    [Show full text]
  • Aliso, 34(2), Online Supplement ISSN 0065-6275 (Print), ISSN 2327-2929 (Online)
    Aliso, 34(2), Online Supplement ISSN 0065-6275 (print), ISSN 2327-2929 (online) Online Supplement for “Tomus Nominum Eriastri: The Nomenclature and Taxonomy of Eriastrum (Polemoniaceae: Loeselieae)”, Sarah J. De Groot (2016) Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany 34 (2): 25–152. EXSICCATAE Representative specimens studied. Not all associate collectors are listed. Eriastrum abramsii JEPS116786. Along Vineyard Canyon Road just over 14 miles north U.S.A. CALIFORNIA: Lake County: Kelseyville, 15 May 1924, J.W. of Monterey-San Luis Obispo county line, 31 May 2008, S.J. De Groot Blankinship s.n., CAS165485. Mt. Konocti [near Kelseyville], 4 Jun 5879, RSA (Pop 260). San Benito County: West of Coalinga, dry 1929, J.W. Blankinship s.n., POM279114. Ridge between Burns hillside, 13 Jun 1910, I.J. Condit s.n., UC455635. Coalinga Road near Valley and Borax Lake, 12 May 1945, H.L. Mason 12585, DS342729. mile post 9.82 from its junction with Highway 25 and east of 2.5 miles south of Kelseyville, 28 Jun 1945, H.L. Mason 12606, Bitterwater, 15 Jun 2004, D. Gowen 117, JEPS105711, JEPS105712. DS342491. 2.5 miles south of Kelseyville on road to Lower Lake, 28 Coalinga Road east of Highway 25 and Bitterwater, near milepost Jun 1945, M.S. Baker 11081, CAS326268. S-facing slope ca. 1 mile 9.82, 1 Jun 2006, D. Gowen 597, JEPS116802. Along Coalinga Road WSW of Glenbrook, upper High Valley Cr. drainage, SE/4 of SW/4 at mile marker 9.82 from Highway 25, 1 Jun 2008, S.J. De Groot S32 T12N R8W, 1 Jun 1983, R.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPAETMENT OF THE INTEEIOE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DiRECTOB WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 297 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART III. PACIFIC COAST AND GREAT BASIN STREAMS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1913 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained on streams in the Great Basin and the streams tributary to the Pacific Ocean from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 241-244. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN THE PACIFIC COAST DRAINAGE BASINS AND THE GREAT BASIN, CALIFORNIA. ____ By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the third of a series of reports on the surface waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and bear the following titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacra­ mento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN January 2019
    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER MEMBER AGENCIES: RESOURCE PLAN Alameda Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda Alameda County Flood January 2019 Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Alameda County’s Watersheds: Approach and Characterization ................................ 5 1.3 Water Quality Issues And Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 5 1.4 Organization of the SWRP .......................................................................................... 6 2. Coordination and Collaboration ................................................................... 8 2.1 Entities Involved in Plan Development ........................................................................ 8 2.2 Coordination of Cooperating Entities and Stakeholders .............................................. 8 2.3 Relationship with Existing Planning Documents .......................................................... 8 2.3.1 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ................
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands Vanishing Yosemite ~.Ark
    SANTA CLARA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY Chapter C 14 of the National Audubon Society 415 CambridgeAve ., Suite 21, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Non-ProfitOrg . Telephone: (415)329-1811 US Postage Paid San Jose, CA The Avocet Permit No. 5869 June 1989 Volume 36, Number 36 Bay Wetlands Vanishing Yosemite ~.ark:. __Needs Y~ur Help coalition of environmental groups, including SCVAS, released a landmark study on April 26, 1989 titled "Endan­ . The Yosemite Master Plan, a A gered Habitat: A Report on the Status of Seasonal Wetlands monumental.grassroots effort on in San Francisco Bay and a Recommended Plan for Their Protec­ the part of concerned citizens, gave tion" It is the first evaluation of the cumulative loss of seasonal wet­ a loud and clear message to all lands in San Francisco and San Pablo Bays_ And the results are branches or"the Federal Govern­ startling. Since 1956, 61 % of the seasonal wetlands found smith ment - MORE PARK, MORE of the Bay Bridge have been destroyed, by fill, degradation, or WILDERNESS, MUCH LESS DEVELOPMENT! That message . conversion. If all development projects that are currently in plan­ was delivered in the late 1970's, ning stages are built, total cumul~tive losses in the South Bay will and to date little _of that citizen reach 73%. That means we would have only 4,927 ~cres remaimng, mandate ,has been carried out. The of 17,953 acres present in 1956. April 23,-1989 issue of the San Wildlife are heavily dependent on seasonal wetlands. Recent -· Francisco Chronicle carried an studies suggest that Bay Area shorebird populations need seasonal · ~xcellent summary of the problem wetlands as a part of their daily feeding and resting grounds.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Estuary Watersheds Evaluation
    San Francisco Estuary Watersheds Evaluation Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Tributaries of the San Francisco Estuary August 2007 By Gordon S. Becker Isabelle J. Reining David A. Asbury Andrew Gunther, Ph.D Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy Grant Agreement Number 04-094 and the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Grant Agreement Number 2004-0194 Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Ave., Suite 325, Oakland, CA 94611 www.cemar.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary pg. 1 Introduction pg. 2 Methods pg. 3 Results pg. 6 Discussion and recommendations pg. 22 Tables, figures, and maps Table 1. San Francisco Estuary watersheds criterion 1 screening results pg. 9 Table 2. Suitable and available O. mykiss rearing habitat in key SF Estuary watersheds pg. 10 Table 3. Open space information for SF Estuary anchor watersheds pg. 10 Table 4. Available O. mykiss rearing habitat in SF Estuary anchor watershed streams pg. 20 Figure 1. Available O. mykiss rearing habitat in SF Estuary watersheds pg. 13 Figure 2. Available O. mykiss rearing habitat in SF Esutary anchor watershed streams pg. 21 Map 1. Study area pg. 7 Map 2. Suitable and available O. mykiss rearing habitat in SF Estuary watersheds pg. 11 Map 3. Anchor watersheds and essential streams of the SF Estuary pg. 15 Appendix A. Methods used for evaluating Bay Area watersheds pg. 33 Appendix B. Results of evaluating Bay Area watersheds pg. 37 Appendix B tables and figures Table B-1. Status of SF Estuary watersheds and streams with respect to reproducing O.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bay Leaf
    November 2009 The Bay Leaf California Native Plant Society • East Bay Chapter Alameda & Contra Costa Counties MEMBERSHIP MEETING Native Eats Native: Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars that East Bay CNPS membership meetings are free of charge and Feed on California Native Plants open to everyone. This month’s meeting takes place in the Speaker: Jerry Powell Garden Room of the Orinda Public Library at 24 Orinda Way (in Orinda Village). The Garden Room is on the second floor Wednesday, November 18, 7:30 pm of the building, accessible by stairs or an elevator. The Gar- Location: Garden Room, Orinda Public Library (directions den Room opens at 7:00 pm; the meeting begins at 7:30 pm. below) Please contact Sue Rosenthal, 510-496-6016 or rosacalifornica@ earthlink.net, if you have any questions. There are about 8,000 named species of moths in western North America and hundreds of butterflies. Most go un- Directions to Orinda Public Library at 24 Orinda Way noticed by the public, but many attract attention when their From the west, take Hwy 24 to the Orinda/Moraga exit. At the larvae create economic damage: eating holes in woolens, end of the off ramp, turn left on Camino Pablo (toward Orinda infesting stored foods, boring into apples, damaging crops Village), right on Santa Maria Way (the signal after the BART and garden plants, or defoliating forests. Many also have station and freeway entrance), and left on Orinda Way. important relationships with California native plants. Dr. From the east, take Hwy 24 to the Orinda exit. Follow the Jerry Powell, co-author of the comprehensive new book ramp to Orinda Village.
    [Show full text]
  • An Historical Review of the Fish and Wildlife Resources of the San
    THE FRESHWATER FISH AND FISHERIES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA HISTORICAL REVIEW water angling in the Bay Area. The more common freshwater fish species are listed in Appendix F-l. Ini- The freshwater fish fauna of the San Francisco Bay tial introductions of selected species now occurring in Area is quite varied and supports a large angling popu- the Bay Area are given in Appendix F-2. lation. This was not always so, however; the area orig- About 1884 the State Board of Fish Commissioners inally was deficient in natural lakes and warmwater was concerned about the vanishing Sacramento perch. streams and the many varieties of so-called warmwater The species was disappearing at an alarming rate, pre- or spiny-rayed gamefish. The only native warmwa- sumably because of overfishing and reclamation. More ter gamefish found here was the Sacramento perch recently, the introduction of alien species also has been (Archoplites interruptus). blamed for the perch scarcity. Salmonids on the other hand inhabited virtually Sacramento perch and several non-game varieties every stream. Native populations of rainbow trout found their way into the San Francisco commercial (Salmo gairdneri) were found in most streams with trade to some extent before 1870. They were obtained a year-around supply of cool water. Silver salmon and by seining in the Delta, in the lower reaches of the steelhead also favored the cooler waters and utilized rivers tributary to the Delta, and in Clear Lake, Lake many of the intermittent streams for spawning. County. Salmonids as a group have always been particularly The largemouth and smallmouth basses (Microp- favored both for food and sport and even in the early tenis salmoides and Micropterus dolomieui) respec- days of San Francisco were heavily exploited by an- tively, both highly esteemed as food and gamefish in glers.
    [Show full text]