DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space City of Richmond General Plan Element 7 Community Vision Richmond, California in 2030

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space City of Richmond General Plan Element 7 Community Vision Richmond, California in 2030 Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space City of Richmond General Plan Element 7 Community Vision Richmond, California in 2030 Richmond values and protects its abundant natural resources—open spaces, wetlands, bay- lands, creeks and riparian systems and plant and wildlife communities. Restoration efforts have enriched native plant communities and wildlife habitats, and improved water and soil quality. Restored creeks collect and filter stormwater, provide urban refuge and link open space from the hills to the Bay along creekside trails. Richmond’s open space supports a range of passive and active recreation for all. The surrounding hills and San Francisco Bay remain prominent character-defining resources, contributing to the community’s image and identity with beautiful scenic backdrops, environmental sanctuaries and recreational opportunities. Richmond promotes sustainability as a core value and operating principle. Critical natural resources are protected, conserved and improved through development standards and best management practices involving smart land use, innovative design and collaborative planning. Strong City leadership, environmental education and community stewardship ensure preservation and sustainability of open space and vital natural resources. 7 Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space A healthy natural environment contributes directly Purpose of the Element to a City’s quality of life. By improving environmen- The Conservation, Natural Resources and Open tal quality, Richmond will ensure that its abundant Space Element describes how the City of Richmond natural resources are sustained and the quality of life will sustain a healthy network of open space and within Richmond is improved. The City is making natural resources for today’s residents and future dramatic strides to protect open space, restore natu- generations. It aims to protect, maintain and ral habitats and promote broad-ranging conservation enhance its natural resources and open spaces, and practices. balance current community resource needs with critical conservation endeavors. Goals, policies and The Conservation, Natural Resources and Open actions in this Element will foster the preservation of Space Element: Richmond’s many valuable natural resources includ- • Describes the status of conservation, natural ing wildlife and plant communities, air, water, soils, resources and open space in Richmond; minerals, energy, open space and scenic views. Richmond aims to sustain a healthy network of open space and natural resources for today’s residents as well as future generations. • Highlights key findings and recommendations based on an analysis of existing conditions; Legal Requirement resources, managed production of resources, out- • Defines goals for promoting natural resource con- The State of California requires that general plans door recreation and land left undeveloped for public servation and ecological sustainability; include a conservation element to address issues health and safety reasons (Code Section 65302e). • Identifies policies and implementing actions to related to conservation, development and utiliza- The Richmond General Plan combines these balance protection and conservation of natural tion of natural resources (Code Section 65302d). closely related topics in this Conservation, Natural resources with responsible development; In Richmond these resources include water, forests, Resources and Open Space Element. • Provides a summary table identifying lead respon- plants and wildlife, soils, minerals, energy, creeks sibilities for each implementing action; and and harbors. In addition, California requires an open space element that contains goals and policies • Reviews the existing regulatory framework that concerned with managing all open space, undevel- guides conservation, natural resource and open oped lands and outdoor recreation areas including space planning efforts. open space used for the preservation of natural SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | 7.3 7 Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space Richmond Today Richmond is located along the northeast portion of San Francisco Bay and the southeast side of San Pablo Bay. The City has more than 32 miles of shoreline that serves as the City’s border to the north, west and south. Marshes, mudflats and wet- lands are located throughout the shoreline. To the north and northeast, Richmond is bounded by the Berkeley Hills, San Pablo Ridge and Sobrante Ridge as well as unincorporated communities. This network of open space, hills and shoreline is rich Richmond’s hillsides provide views of the City, areas for hiking and habitat for local plants and wildlife. with flora, fauna and natural resources. The City also supports forested, creek and riparian areas and • Space left unimproved to protect public health The hills and bays are integral to the community’s a variety of other natural areas that are integral to and safety including fault zones and flood plains. image and identity, providing beautiful scenic back- Central Richmond, industrial areas and residential Richmond’s open space lands include a broad range drops, environmental sanctuaries and recreational neighborhoods. of areas such as: greenways, trails, easements, parks, resources. The City is bounded by the Berkeley Hills, San Pablo Ridge, Sobrante Ridge and Point Each component of the natural environment is plazas, common areas in residential developments, Richmond. These hills sustain a rich environment interrelated and sustains a diverse range of spe- land use buffers, wetlands and riparian areas, in for native plant and wildlife species and create con- cies, habitats and recreational opportunities. These addition to the waters of San Francisco and San tinuous wildlife corridors. resources are vital to the City and surrounding Pablo Bays and their associated channels and har- region because they provide a biologically diverse bors. Richmond enjoys more than 3,300 acres The hill areas provide for water infiltration and veg- environment for people. of regional and state parklands located along the etation which helps moderate the urban heat island shoreline and in the East Bay hills, and more than effect. In addition, local foothills provide publicly Open Space 250 acres of City-owned urban parkland. Other accessible trails and vistas for enjoying nature, view- open space uses in Richmond include grazing areas Open space includes areas of land or water that are ing the bays, nearby bridges and surrounding cit- and the Rolling Hill Memorial Park and Cemetery. unimproved and are designated in a local, regional ies. Richmond actively protects its hills and ridges Open space as it relates to parks, recreation and or state open space plan for open space use. Open and associated natural features through a Hillside trails is further discussed in the Parks and Recreation space areas also include: Ordinance. Element. • Land for the preservation of natural resources; • Space for outdoor recreation; and Hillsides and Scenic Resources Surrounding hills and the San Francisco and San Pablo bays are prominent scenic areas in Richmond. 7.4 | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2 0 3 0 7 Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space flood potential. For residents, restored urban creeks provide a valuable connection to natural areas and create opportunities for recreation, education and awareness. Wildcat Creek, San Pablo Creek, Castro Creek (Castro Cove), Cerrito Creek, Baxter Creek, Rheem Creek and Garrity Creek cross the City boundar- ies and eventually drain into the San Francisco and San Pablo bays. All include portions that have been channelized, lined with concrete and maintained such that riparian and marsh vegetation is generally Open space and wetlands located along Richmond’s shoreline provide important natural habitat. cleared annually. Wetlands, Baylands and Riparian Baylands and Marshes The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists Wildcat Creek and San Pablo Creek as impaired Corridors Baylands provide a vital and important ecosystem water bodies due to their high levels of pesticide to the Bay Area and Richmond in particular. With Wetlands residue. Riparian habitat is located along por- more than 32 miles of shoreline, the baylands in Wetlands are a valuable natural resource, provid- tions of creeks that have been preserved or restored Richmond are made up of diverse tidal areas such as ing habitat for wildlife and retention areas for both including Wildcat Creek, Rheem Creek, San Pablo marshes, mudflats, seasonal wetlands, rocky shores storm and flood waters, and natural groundwater Creek and Baxter Creek. These areas provide food, and beaches. These areas are a valuable resource for recharge and filtration.4 Wetlands have important cover and breeding sites for wildlife proximate to a recreation, open space and habitat. Significant bay- ecological functions in supporting unique assem- water source. In addition, these restored creeks and lands within Richmond include Hoffman Marsh, blages of specially adapted plants and wildlife that riparian habitat may accommodate floodwater for Stege Marsh, Whittel Marsh and various unnamed depend on wetlands for survival. groundwater recharge and stormwater management tidal mudflats. (see Map 7.2: Floodplains and Watersheds). The The National Wetlands Inventory of the United Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water States Fish and Wildlife Service contains records Creeks and Riparian Systems Conservation District operates and maintains the of seasonal wetlands within the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources
    Section 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Introduction This section presents information on known and potentially existing cultural resources at the RBC site and analyzes the potential for development under the proposed 2014 LRDP to affect those resources. Information and analysis in this section is based on previous archaeological surveys (see Section 4.4.5) and those conducted for the current project: Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Richmond Bay Campus, Alameda County (GANDA 2013) and Historic Properties Survey Report for Richmond Bay Campus (Tetra Tech 2013). Cultural resources can be prehistoric, Native American, or historic. Prehistoric resources are artifacts from human activities that predate written records; these are generally identified in isolated finds or sites. Prehistoric resources are typically archaeological and can include village sites, temporary camps, lithic scatters, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, petroglyphs, rock features, and burial plots. Historic resources are properties, structures, or built items from human activities that coincide with the epoch of written records. Historic resources can include archaeological remains and architectural structures. Historic archaeological sites include townsites, homesteads, agricultural or ranching features, mining-related features, refuse concentrations, and features or artifacts associated with early military and industrial land uses. Historic architectural resources can include houses, cabins, barns, lighthouses, other constructed buildings, and bridges. Generally, architectural resources that are over 50 years old are considered for evaluation for their historic significance. Public and agency NOP comments related to cultural resources are summarized below: For construction activities proposed in a state right-of-way, Caltrans requires that project environmental documentation include results of a current Northwest Information Center archaeological records search.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
    The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Management Board Bay Area Audubon Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Institute The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Bay Planning Coalition California State Coastal Conservancy Celebrating years of partnerships protecting wetlands and wildlife California Department of Fish and Game California Resources Agency 15 Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Ducks Unlimited National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company PRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Estuary Partnership Save the Bay Sierra Club U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Wildlife Conservation Board 735B Center Boulevard, Fairfax, CA 94930 415-259-0334 www.sfbayjv.org www.yourwetlands.org The San Francisco Bay Area is breathtaking! As Chair of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, I would like to personally thank our partners It’s no wonder so many of us live here – 7.15 million of us, according to the 2010 census. Each one of us has our for their ongoing support of our critical mission and goals in honor of our 15 year anniversary. own mental image of “the Bay Area.” For some it may be the place where the Pacific Ocean flows beneath the This retrospective is a testament to the significant achievements we’ve made together. I look Golden Gate Bridge, for others it might be somewhere along the East Bay Regional Parks shoreline, or from one forward to the next 15 years of even bigger wins for wetland habitat.
    [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]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show 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
    [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]
  • Hydrologic Investigation of Concrete Flood Control Channel at UC Berkeley’S Richmond Field Station
    Hydrologic Investigation of Concrete Flood Control Channel at UC Berkeley’s Richmond Field Station by Patrick Nichols Abstract The Richmond Field Station Natural Restoration Project is a five year multimillion dollar effort. The first stages involve the remediation of polluted marsh lands, then the restoration of the upland prairie habitat, finishing with the adjacent channel. The concrete flood control channel is slated to become a free flowing creek and riparian corridor by the restoration planners at the university. The dynamics of this system must be understood to properly design a restoration, or creation plan since historically no creek existed there. This study assesses multiple aspects of the concrete channel to determine its health and qualifications for restoration. We calculated flow measurements at various intervals along the channel using velocity observations and the known cross sectional areas. We observed the depths creating a predictive relationship between depth and flow. Water quality characteristics: dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and conductivity were measured on a weekly basis for three months during the winter/spring of 2004. This information is used to help answer the question of what is the health of this system with regards to these variables, and what are its hydrological characteristics. Results show a consistent base flow of about 1 cubic foot per second with a peak flow around 152cfs. A linear relationship exists between depth and flow. The slope of the channel water surface is about 0.36%. The water quality parameters were indicative of a healthy system. The results of this project provide a base of knowledge for future investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM of UNDERSTANDING RELATING To
    MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RELATING TO THE CASTRO COVE/CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES SETTLEMENT AMONG THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, OFFICE OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE, THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE), AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION I. INTRODUCTION This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is between the California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response (CDFG/OSPR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (collectively referred to as, the "Trustees"). This MOU is entered into to ensure the coordination and cooperation of the Trustees in restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, and/or acquiring the equivalent of resources injured by the release of hazardous substances and discharge of oil from the Chevron Refinery in Richmond, California. II. PARTIES The following officials are executing this MOU as representatives of their respective agencies that act on behalf of the public as Trustees for natural resources under this MOU: • Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, USFWS on behalf of USDOI; • Administrator, CDFG/OSPR; • Division Chief, Restoration Center, Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation, NOAA, Ill. AUTHORITY The Trustees enter into this MOU pursuant to the authority provided to Natural Resource Trustees by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) [42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq.]; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C §§ 1251, et seq.]; and CERCLA Damage Assessment Regulations [43 C.F.R., Part 11].
    [Show full text]
  • A Cultural and Natural History of the San Pablo Creek Watershed
    A Cultural and Natural History of the San Pablo Creek Watershed by Lisa Owens-Viani Prepared by The Watershed Project (previously known as the Aquatic Outreach Institute) Note: This booklet focuses on the watershed from the San Pablo Dam and reservoir westward (downstream). For a history of the Orinda area, see Muir Sorrick's The History of Orinda, published by the Orinda Library Board in 1970. Orinda also has an active creek stewardship group, the Friends of Orinda Creeks, which has conducted several watershed outreach efforts in local schools (see www.ci.orinda.ca.us/orindaway.htm). This booklet was written as part of the Aquatic Outreach Institute's efforts to develop stewardship of the mid- to lower watershed. The San Pablo Creek watershed is a wealthy one-rich in history, culture, and natural resources. The early native American inhabitants of the watershed drank from this deep and powerful creek and caught the steelhead that swam in its waters. They ate the tubers and roots of the plants that grew in the fertile soils deposited by the creek, and buried their artifacts, the shells and bones of the creatures they ate, and even their own dead along its banks. Later, European settlers grew fruit, grain, and vegetables in the same rich soils and watered cattle in the creek. Even today, residents of the San Pablo Creek watershed rely on the creek, perhaps unknowingly: its waters quench the thirst and meet the household needs of about 10 percent of the East Bay Municipal Utility District's customers. Some residents rely on the creek in another way, though-as a reminder that something wild and self-sufficient flows through their midst, offering respite from the surrounding urbanized landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Assessment of Avian Mercury Exposure in the Bay-Delta Ecosystem
    Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project Subtask 3B: Field assessment of avian mercury exposure in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Draft Final Report Submitted to Mark Stephenson Director Marine Pollution Studies labs Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholt Rd. Moss Landing, Ca 95039 Submitted by: Dr. Steven Schwarzbach USGS Biological Research Division Western Ecological Research Center 7801 Folsom Blvd. Sacramento California 95826 and Terry Adelsbach US Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Environmental Contaminants Division 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento Ca. 95825 1 BACKGROUND The Bay/Delta watershed has a legacy of mercury contamination resulting from mercury mining in the Coast Range and the use of this mercury in the amalgamation method for extraction of gold from stream sediments and placer deposits in the Sierra Nevada. Because mercury, and methylmercury in particular, strongly bioaccumulate in aquatic foodwebs there has been a reasonable speculation that widespread mercury contamination of the bay/delta from historic sources in the watershed could be posing a health threat to piscivorous wildlife. As a result this systematic survey of mercury exposure in aquatic birds was conducted in both San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The Delta component of the survey was subtask 3b of the CalFed mercury project. The San Francisco Bay component of the project was conducted at the behest of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2, San Francisco Bay. Results of both projects are reported on here because of overlap in methods and species sampled, the interconnectedness of the Bay/Delta estuary and the need to address avian wildlife risk of mercury in the region as a whole.
    [Show full text]