DOCSLIB.ORG

Wildcat Creek Restoration Action Plan Version 1.3 April 26, 2010 Prepared by the URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL for the WILDCAT-SAN PABLO WATERSHED COUNCIL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wildcat Creek Restoration Action Plan Version 1.3 April 26, 2010 Prepared by the URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL for the WILDCAT-SAN PABLO WATERSHED COUNCIL wildcat creek restoration action plan version 1.3 April 26, 2010 prepared by THE URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL for the WILDCAT-SAN PABLO WATERSHED COUNCIL Adopted by the City of San Pablo on August 3, 2010 wildcat creek restoration action plan table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 plan obJectives 5 1.2 scope 6 Urban Urban 1.5 Methods 8 1.5 Metadata c 10 reeks 2. WATERSHED OVERVIEW 12 c 2.1 introdUction o 12 U 2.2 watershed land Use ncil 13 2.3 iMpacts of Urbanized watersheds 17 april 2.4 hydrology 19 2.5 sediMent transport 22 2010 2.6 water qUality 24 2.7 habitat 26 2.8 flood ManageMent on lower wildcat creek 29 2.9 coMMUnity 32 3. PROJECT AREA ANALYSIS 37 3.1 overview 37 3.2 flooding 37 3.4 in-streaM conditions 51 3.5 sUMMer fish habitat 53 3.6 bioassessMent 57 4. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 58 4.1 obJectives, findings and strategies 58 4.2 recoMMended actions according to strategy 61 4.3 streaM restoration recoMMendations by reach 69 4.4 recoMMended actions for phase one reaches 73 t 4.5 phase one flood daMage redUction reach 73 able of 4.6 recoMMended actions for watershed coUncil 74 c ontents version 1.3 april 26, 2010 2 wildcat creek restoration action plan Urban creeks coUncil april 2010 table of contents 3 figUre 1-1: wildcat watershed overview to Point Pinole Regional Shoreline wildcat watershed existing trail wildcat creek highway railroad city of san pablo planned trail other creek arterial road bart Parkway SAN PABLO Richmond BAY Avenue San Pablo Point UP RR San Pablo WEST COUNTY BNSF RR CITY OF LANDFILL NORTH SAN PABLO RICHMOND San Pablo Dam Road CONTRA 2010 april 26, version 1.3 WILDCAT MARSH PHASE I PHASE II reaches reaches COSTA COUNTY ALVARADO PARK watershed Point boundary Molate WILDCAT CANYON 23rd Street REGIONAL CHEVRON RICHMOND PARK MacDonald Avenue RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE BAY TRAIL RIDGE TRAIL BART BAY AREA RICHMOND GREENWAY WILDCAT CREEK POINT RICHMOND Cutting Boulevard 80 SAN PABLO 580 RESERVOIR MILLER-KNOX EL CERRITO OHLONE GREENWAY REGIONAL San Pablo Avenue to Marin County Parks and Trails BAY TRAIL SHORELINE MARINA Jewel BAY Lake POINT ISABEL REGIONAL RICHMOND SHORELINE TILDEN INNER REGIONAL PARK HARBOR KENSINGTON Lake Anza SAN FRANCISCO Vollmer Peak BAY 1905ʼ ALAMEDA Grizzly Peak COUNTY BERKELEY 1758ʼ sources: Contra Costa County 2009, Association of Bay Area Governments 2009, East Bay Regional Parks District 2009 to Redwood Regional Park wildcat creek restoration action plan 1. introdUction 1.1 PLAN OBJECTIVES figUre 1-2: watershed location The Wildcat Watershed Restoration Napa Action Plan (WRAP) provides information and recommendations Urban to support management decisions for lower Wildcat Creek watershed c reeks in its urban portions within the City San Pablo Suisun Bay of San Pablo (Figure 1-1). c San Rafael o Mt Tamalpais U The Wildcat San Pablo Creeks ncil Mt Diablo Watershed Council began preparing Oakland the WRAP in 2004 to address april San recurring flood damages which PACIFIC Francisco Central OCEAN 2010 can occur in the City of San Pablo Bay and to develop a strategy for flood protection and stormwater South management while protecting and WILDCAT CREEK WATERSHED Bay enhancing the riparian and instream SAN PABLO CREEK WATERSHED BAY AREA WATERSHEDS San Jose habitat and recreational resources. miles The scope is tightly bound to Wildcat 0 10 20 NORTH Creek within the City of San Pablo. The three main objectives of the plan are prioritized as follows: 1. Reduce flood risk based on Wildcat Creek’s 100-year flood flows and improve stormwater management in low-lying neighborhoods. 2. Enhance riparian habitat, specifically focused on resident rainbow trout and the potential restoration of anadramous steelhead migration. 3. Develop recreational resources for the community, specifically a fully connected two-mile Wildcat Creek Trail through the City. These objectives represent on-going efforts by the local community to address critical opportunities and constraints along lower Wildcat Creek. Despite a thirty year history of planning for flood management by all levels of government, the City remains vulnerable to flooding, as witnessed in the recent December 2005 storms. Although neighborhoods have been built in its floodplain, Wildcat Creek remains a introd 1. dominant natural feature cutting through the City’s urban grid, representing a major opportunity to create a refuge for residents and wildlife. Opportunities to enhance U riparian and instream habitat are supported by the creek’s open channel and a thin edge ction of remnant riparian vegetation through most of the City. Urban infrastructure such as 1.1 plan obJectives 4 wildcat creek restoration action plan culverts, encroaching development, altered stream flow and sediment dynamics, and pervasive urban pollutants present entrenched challenges to conservation of riparian wildlife who depend on a well-connected, high-quality creek corridor through the whole watershed. The creek’s linear form connects two major regional destinations: the well-developed park lands of the East Bay hills and the stunning shoreline along San Pablo Bay. The Wildcat Creek corridor presents a well-recognized but unfulfilled opportunity to connect urban neighorhoods to regional destinations, mass transit and employment centers via a greenway, a linear park and trail system, creating much-needed park space within City limits and supporting goals for reduced flood Urban Urban risk and improved habitat. c reeks 1.2 SCOPE While it was the preference of the Watershed Council to address the entire Wildcat c o Creek watershed in this planning effort, the grant program funding the project U ncil constrained the scope to focus analysis and recommendations on Wildcat Creek reaches within the City of San Pablo (Figure 1-3). The plan considers greater april watershed-scale processes for flood and sediment management as described in previously conducted watershed studies, but does not contribute further analysis 2010 or make recommendations at this scale. The plan does address some critical flood and sediment management strategies downstream of City boundaries because of the closely interrelated resource management issues and their effects on flooding within Wildcat Creek’s main stem City limits. channel flows along 13.8 lineal miles and the watershed covers figUre 1-3: MaJor sections of wildcat watershed 11.1 square miles. The creek’s upper nine miles lies within TIDAL FLAT LOWER WATERSHED UPPER WATERSHED Wildcat Marsh Alluvial Plain Wildcat Canyon East Bay Regional Park District land. This upper watershed, characterized by hilly terrain between two ridgelines, is known as Wildcat Canyon. The boundary between the upper and lower watershed falls near highway Interstate 80, where the creek flows out of the 1 mile canyon onto its alluvial plain. Much of the City of San Pablo (shaded in gray) is located in Wildcat Creek’s lower watershed. About 2.2 miles PHASE I PHASE II of Wildcat Creek run through North Richmond City of San Pablo the City. Downstream, in the unincorporated Contra Costa County community of North area of focus Richmond, another 2.5 miles of introd 1. Wildcat Creek’s channel flows into a tidal flat along San Pablo Bay. Starting in 1985, the U.S. U Army Corps of Engineers led ction flood control planning efforts LOWER WATERSHED in two phases: Phase I in North Richmond (constructed) and 1/2 mile Alluvial Plain Phase II in the City of San 1.2 scope 5 Pablo (never implemented). wildcat creek restoration action plan Urban creeks coUncil april 2010 1. introdUction 6 figUre 1-4: wildcat and san pablo creek shared floodplain cope s 1.2 1.2 San Pablo Creek Watershed Boundary san pablo creek PHASE I PHASE II Richmond Parkway Richmond wildcat creek I-80 NORTH CITY OF RICHMOND UP RR SAN PABLO BNSF RR Vale Road Wildcat Creek Watershed Boundary UPPER TIDAL ALLUVIAL PLAIN FLAT WATERSHED sources: Contra Costa County 2009, Federal Emergency Management Agency 2010 FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN FEMA 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN STREAM GAUGE wildcat creek restoration action plan 1.5 METhoDS approach The WRAP continues the tradition of watershed planning with an interdisciplinary and multi-objective approach that applies a watershed perspective on the processes affecting different reaches. It emphasizes the collection and analysis of information to address flood and stormwater management, fish habitat enhancement, recreational opportunities, public access and stream channel restoration. It aims to identify restoration objectives, opportunities and priorities that are compatible with the local Urban environment while reducing flood damage to property owners and residents. It recognizes urban creeks as an important resource for wildlife and people, providing c health benefits, educational opportunities and recreational amenities by restoring reeks natural processes in the urban environment. c o fUnding and proJect ManageMent U ncil The CALFED Watershed Program grant contract which funded the WRAP began in 2004. The Urban Creeks Council, a local non-profit organization and member of the april Watershed Council, served as the fiscal agent and project manager for the WRAP. The Watershed Council provided guidance throughout the planning process and 2010 made key decisions, such as the selection of immediate priority projects, based on information and analysis provided by the WRAP Technical Advisory Committee. table 1-1: wrap technical advisory coMMittee NAME ORGANIZATION ROLE Grant Administration, Josh Bradt URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL Project Coordination, (through 2008) Restoration Implementation Community outreach, Adéle Ho CITY OF SAN PABLO Information Source, Funding EAST BAY REGIONAL Pete Alexander Fish habitat Assessment PARKS DISTRICT Stream Flow and Stormwater Jonathan owens BALANCE HYDROLOGICS System Analysis Geomorphic Assessment Laurel Collins WATERSHED SCIENCES of Channel Conditions WATERWAYS RESTORATION Roger Leventhal Hydraulic Modeling INSTITUTE WATERWAYS RESTORATION Technical Advice, Community Ann Riley INSTITUTE Outreach and Coordination watershed characterization The planning process for the WRAP included a summary and accounting of all watershed-wide reports, data inventories, planning documents, completed and introd 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2. Existing Conditions
    2. EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter provides a description of existing conditions within the City of Lafayette relevant to the Bikeways Master Plan. Information is based on site visits, existing planning documents, maps, and conversations with Lafayette residents and City of Lafayette, Contra Costa County and other agency staff. 2.1. SETTING The City of Lafayette is situated in a semi-rural valley in Contra Costa County, approximately twenty miles east of San Francisco, on the east side of the Oakland/Berkeley hills. Lafayette has a population of approximately 24,000, and encompasses about 15 square miles of land area, for a population density of about 1,500 persons per square mile. Settlement started in the late 1800s but incorporation did not occur until 1968. Lafayette developed its first general plan in 1974, and this general plan was last updated in 2002. The City is bordered on the north by Briones Regional Lafayette-Moraga Trail along St. Mary’s Park, on the east by Walnut Creek, on the south by Moraga and Road near Florence Drive the west by Orinda. Mixed in along its borders are small pockets of unincorporated Contra Costa County. Lafayette has varied terrain, with steep hills located to the north and south. Highway 24 runs through the City, San Francisco is a 25-minute BART ride away, and Oakland’s Rockridge district is just two BART stops away. LAFAYETTE LAND USES Lafayette’s existing development consists mostly of low- to medium-density single family residential, commercial, parkland and open space. Land uses reflect a somewhat older growth pattern: Commercial areas are located on both sides of Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2011  510 520 3876
    BPWA Walks Walks take place rain or shine and last 2-3 hours unless otherwise noted. They are free and Berkeley’s open to all. Walks are divided into four types: Theme Friendly Power Self Guided Questions about the walks? Contact Keith Skinner: [email protected] Vol. 14 No. 3 BerkeleyPaths Path Wanderers Association Fall 2011 510 520 3876. October 9, Sunday - 2nd An- BPWA Annual Meeting Oct. 20 nual Long Walk - 9 a.m. Leaders: Keith Skinner, Colleen Neff, To Feature Greenbelt Alliance — Sandy Friedland Sandy Friedland Can the Bay Area continue to gain way people live.” A graduate of Stanford Meeting Place: El Cerrito BART station, University, Matt worked for an envi- main entrance near Central population without sacrificing precious Transit: BART - Richmond line farmland, losing open space and harm- ronmental group in Sacramento before All day walk that includes portions of Al- ing the environment? The members of he joined Greenbelt. His responsibilities bany Hill, Pt. Isabel, Bay Trail, Albany Bulb, Greenbelt Alliance are doing everything include meeting with city council members East Shore Park, Aquatic Park, Sisterna they can to answer those questions with District, and Santa Fe Right-of-Way, ending a resounding “Yes.” Berkeley Path at North Berkeley BART. See further details Wanderers Asso- in the article on page 2. Be sure to bring a ciation is proud to water bottle and bag lunch. No dogs, please. feature Greenbelt October 22, Saturday - Bay Alliance at our Trail Exploration on New Landfill Annual Meeting Thursday, October Loop - 9:30 a.m. 20, at the Hillside Club (2286 Cedar Leaders: Sandra & Bruce Beyaert.
    [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, California
    VOLUME 3 OF 5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS Community Community Name Number ANTIOCH, CITY OF 060026 BRENTWOOD, CITY OF 060439 CLAYTON, CITY OF 060027 CONCORD, CITY OF 065022 DANVILLE, TOWN OF 060707 EL CERRITO, CITY OF 065027 HERCULES, CITY OF 060434 LAFAYETTE, CITY OF 065037 MARTINEZ, CITY OF 065044 MORAGA, TOWN OF 060637 OAKLEY, CITY OF 060766 ORINDA, CITY OF 060722 PINOLE, CITY OF 060032 PITTSBURG, CITY OF 060033 PLEASANT HILL, CITY OF 060034 RICHMOND, CITY OF 060035 SAN PABLO, CITY OF 060036 SAN RAMON, CITY OF 060710 WALNUT CREEK, CITY OF 065070 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 060025 REVISED March 21, 2017 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 06013CV003C NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: June 16, 2009 Revised Countywide FIS Dates: September 30, 2015 March 21, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 – March 21, 2017 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority
    Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Prepared By: 1625 Shattuck Avenue Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO www.placeworks.com Table of Contents List of Figures & Tables ii Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 13 1.1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Transportation Program 13 1.2 CBTP Guidelines 14 1.3 2004 Richmond-Area CBTP 15 1.4 Current Richmond Area CBTP 15 1.5 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 17 2. Study Area Profile 18 2.1 Demographic Analysis 18 2.2 Transportation Patterns 24 2.3 Transportation Network 28 3. Previous Studies and Mobility Gaps 33 3.1 Local Studies 33 3.2 Countywide Studies 37 3.3 Current Studies 39 3.4 Thematic Mobility Challenges 40 4. Outreach and Engagement Summary 43 4.1 CBTP Advisor Groups 43 4.2 Outreach Strategy 44 4.3 Outreach Awareness 44 4.4 Outreach Results 46 4.5 Outreach Summary 54 5. Methodology and Recommendations 56 5.1 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 56 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 57 5.3 Evaluation Process 60 5.4 Recommended Projects and Plans 62 Appendix A Existing Conditions Report Appendix B Outreach Materials and Results Appendix C Recommendations Scoring Results Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan i Contra Costa Transportation Authority List of Figures
    [Show full text]
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal
    Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully
    [Show full text]
  • Codornices Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan
    Codornices Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan Prepared for the Urban Creeks Council By Kier Associates Fisheries and Watershed Professionals 207 Second Street, Ste. B Sausalito, CA 94965 November, 2003 The Codornices Creek watershed assessment and salmonid restoration planning project, the results of which are reported here, was funded by the Watershed Program of the California Bay-Delta Authority, through Contract No. 4600001722 between the California Department of Water Resources and the Urban Creeks Council. The Urban Creeks Council is a non-profit organization working to preserve, protect, and restore urban streams and their riparian habitat. The Urban Creeks Council may be reached at 1250 Addison Street, Ste. 107, Berkeley, CA 94702 (510- 540-6669). Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... ii Introduction Fish and stream habitat records................................................................................................. 1 Other Codornices Creek studies................................................................................................ 1 Methods: How Each Element of the Project Was Undertaken Fish population assessment methods ........................................................................................ 2 Salmonid habitat assessment methods.....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf
    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
    [Show full text]
  • Birdathon 2010 Bay Area Burrowing Owls Face Many Challenges
    vol. 95 no. 4 May 2010 the newsletter of the golden gate audubon society founded 1917 Join the Fun! Birdathon 2010 here is still time to sign up for Birdathon T 2010 if you don’t delay. You can enjoy exhilarating bird sightings in your backyard, along our shorelines, or farther afi eld—and help Golden Gate Audubon support our important conservation and education programs. The spirit of friendly competition is in the air—along with the many bird species migrating through the Bay Area this time of the year. Sign up today to join this fun event, which is suitable for the entire family and community. Mary Malec With just two weeks left before the May 16 Western Burrowing Owl eating a caterpillar, at Cesar Chavez Park, Berkeley. completion date, you and your friends and fam- ily can get involved in the Birdathon by signing up online, over the phone, or in person at our Bay Area Burrowing Owls Berkeley offi ce. To register online, go to www. goldengateaudubon.org/birdathon. Face Many Challenges A birdathon is like a walkathon, except par- ticipants count bird species instead of miles. Friends, family members, and coworkers support espite the hopes and best efforts of dedicated Golden Gate Audubon vol- you by pledging any amount for each species you D unteers, the number of migrating Western Burrowing Owls that spend identify. Participation in the event automatically winter months in Berkeley’s Cesar Chavez Park continue to decline. Ten years ago, enters you into contests for a chance to win 15 Burrowing Owls were seen in the park.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 NHPA Annual Report
    January 30, 2017 Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer Attention: Mark Beason Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 John Fowler, Executive Director Attention: Najah Duvall Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 401 F Street NW, Suite 308 Washington, DC 20001 Laura Joss, Regional Director Attention: Elaine Jackson-Retondo National Park Service – Pacific West Regional Office 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Craig Kenkel, Acting Superintendent Attention: Steve Haller Golden Gate National Recreation Area Building 201 Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94123 Reference: 2016 Annual Report on Activities under the 2014 Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement, the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District, San Francisco, California Pursuant to Stipulation XIV of the Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement (PTPA, 2014), enclosed is the 2016 Annual Report of activities conducted under that PA. In 2016, the Presidio Trust celebrated the 50th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act alongside the nation’s preservation community with a sense of reflection, gratitude and forward-looking purpose. We were also pleased to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the National Park Service, and thank our partners for their trailblazing role in preserving American cultural heritage here in California and beyond. Our principal activity for recognizing these milestones was to host the 41st annual California Preservation Foundation conference at the Presidio in April. At the conference we were enormously proud to be recognized by CPF president Kelly Sutherlin McLeod as “perhaps the biggest preservation success story of the 20th century”, praise that would not be possible without the contributions of our partner agencies, tenants and park users.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenge Accepted
    SUMMER 2018 Challenge Accepted THE KATAYANAGI FAMILY AND THOUSanDS OF OTHER PARK VISitORS MARK THE 25TH anniVERSARY OF THE TRaiLS CHALLEngE IN THIS ISSUE: TILDen FOREVER P. 4 | intO the REDWOODS P. 12 | A PLAnneD SHORELine PARK P. 16 DID YOU ON THE RIGHT TRACK This year marks a milestone time for the Park District KNOW? Fun facts about the with the 25th anniversary of the Trails Challenge and East Bay Regional park membership at an all-time high. The vital role our Park District parks play in keeping the East Bay happy, healthy and active is clearer than ever. Park visitors of all ages can take part in the annual Trails Challenge—finding new paths to hike and parks to explore. A few years ago, the Foundation heard from two senior women who had been walking together at Lake Chabot for decades. After taking the challenge, one of the women shared: “I get to see new places, clear my head and get healthy. I feel great about it.” The Trails Challenge had a similar impact on our cover subjects: Jonathan, Donica, Penny and Rocky Katayanagi. Jonathan and his daughter, Penny, took on the 2017 Trails Challenge when Penny was 6, completing all five trails in one day. Now, the challenge is a family tradition, with all $192,839 four of them hitting the trails together—and fostering a lifelong love Total amount of bequests given to of hiking. the Foundation in 2017 Inspiring people to be active and enjoy our beautiful regional parks is one of the best parts of the Trails Challenge, and it’s why the program continues to grow.
    [Show full text]