DOCSLIB.ORG

(Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. 135 San Mateo and San Francisco Counties p. 141 San Francisquito Creek Watershed; Redwood Creek Watershed; Cordilleras Creek Watershed; Belmont Creek Watershed; Laurel Creek Watershed; San Mateo Creek Watershed; Sanchez Creek Watershed; Easton Creek Watershed; Mills Creek Drainage; Colma Creek Watershed San Mateo County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 155 Marin County p. 161 Coyote Creek Watershed; Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio Watershed; Corte Madera Creek Watershed; Miller Creek Watershed; Pacheco Creek Watershed; Arroyo San Jose Watershed; Novato Creek Watershed Marin County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 177 Sonoma County p. 183 Petaluma River Watershed; Sonoma Creek Watershed; Schell Creek Watershed Sonoma County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 207 Napa County p. 213 Huichica Creek Watershed; Napa River Watershed; Fagan Creek Watershed; American Canyon Creek Watershed Napa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 251 Solano County p. 257 Unnamed Creek to Cordelia Slough Watershed; Green Valley Creek Watershed; Suisun Creek Watershed Solano County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 263 Discussion p. 269 Acknowledgements p. 273 Abbreviations & Acronyms p. 275 FOREWARD The document in your hands is the work of generations. When Dr. Robert Leidy first started walking the streams of the East Bay to make field observations of native fishes, he was following paths walked in previous centuries by other biologists. For years Rob made his way along brush- and concrete- covered stream banks, pulling nets and snorkeling in pools, and acquiring the written reports of his predecessors. Now, with the assistance of Gordon Becker and Brett Harvey, these decades of observations have been synthesized and analyzed in a scientifically authoritative manner and made publicly available. Many Bay Area residents are surprised to discover that rainbow trout still inhabit our streams, and that every year steelhead (the ocean-going form of rainbow trout) enter our creeks from the ocean searching for spawning habitat. While the abundance of steelhead has been greatly diminished by the last 50 years of urban development, there still exist Bay Area streams where these magnificent fish make their way upstream to spawn in clear, clean, cold water. Most fisheries scientists believe that with modest modifications to our water supply and flood control infrastructure, and revisions to the operations of certain facilities, we can return steelhead to many places they used to inhabit. Spurred by this knowledge, and the listing of steelhead as threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, citizens and governmental agencies are at work in locations throughout our region on plans to restore these steelhead populations. The Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration is pleased to provide the scientific information in this document to assist them in these restoration efforts. The technical and political complexity of their task should not be underestimated. The responsibility for protection and restoration of these steelhead populations often rests with government agencies with no official mandate to restore or protect natural resources. These include flood control districts, water supply agencies, and public works departments, and these organizations are struggling to adapt to a new political environment in which they are responsible for managing lands and water resources to protect endangered species. The agencies face inevitable conflicts between their traditional mandates and these new responsibilities, and are working with local stakeholders to address conflicts, build new partnerships, and find supplemental funding opportunities. Certainly, the fish appear willing to do their part. Adult steelhead have been found in downtown Hayward, after swimming 12 miles up a concrete flood control channel. Behind our major dams rainbow trout complete their lifecycle in human-made microcosms. Instead of their downstream migration leading to an oceanic journey of thousands of miles, these fish move downstream to reservoirs, where they live until it is time to return to the upper watershed to spawn. If free to move downstream and back, there is every reason to assume these trout will resume the oceanic round trip of their ancestors, making these wild fish vital resources for restoration. In 2004 the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed that the rainbow trout in the Alameda Creek watershed be included in the officially threatened population, the first designation ever for a population located behind a dam. The report you hold provides for the first time an accessible and credible presentation of where these fish still survive, thanks in part to the maps prepared by the Center’s cartographer David Asbury. Restoration of steelhead in Bay Area watersheds is only just beginning, and their complex life cycle will test our capabilities. To be successful we must integrate management across political boundaries that make no ecological sense, encouraging diverse public and private entities to work together. 3 As with most challenging endeavors, there is much to be gained. The physical beauty and ecological integrity of San Francisco Bay and its watersheds are keys to our region’s economic prosperity and quality of life. As Will Travis, Executive Director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, has noted “As the world’s places deteriorate in quality, those that have been protected and enhanced will become even more precious. That is why enhancing the Bay Area’s environment is such an important economic investment.” The return of one of nature’s great spectacles to our counties will enrich the lives of Bay Area residents in non-monetary ways as well. The migratory journey of steelhead from stream to ocean and their indomitable return to their natal habitats have touched the human spirit for generations. Wallace Stegner argued that “something goes out of us as a people” when we drive species to extinction, and there can be no doubt that the restoration of wild creatures in our communities will return something to us and our children. Critical policy decisions are presently being made that will shape the regional landscape for decades to come. Rob and his co- authors have shown that we have the opportunity to choose a path that includes the preservation and restoration of timeless and unique environmental resources for present and future Bay Area residents. Andrew Gunther, Ph.D. Executive Director Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Oakland, CA 4 INTRODUCTION Five species of Pacific salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) are known from watersheds tributary to the San Francisco Estuary (Estuary), exclusive of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries that drain the Central Valley of California (Leidy 2004). Salmon species either historically or recently recorded from Estuary streams include coho salmon (O. kisutch), chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), chum salmon (O. keta), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), and the non-anadromous and anadromous life-history forms of rainbow trout (O. mykiss). Recent status reviews indicate that natural populations of coho and chinook salmon and steelhead within coastal California have declined dramatically over the last 50 years, and populations apparently are continuing to decline in other regions (Brown et al. 1994; CDFG 2002; Myers et al. 1998; NMFS 1996, 1999, 2001). Status reviews have assisted the National Marine Fisheries Service in the identification of over 50 listed Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) for West
Recommended publications
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin

    Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin

    Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city.
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

    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
  • Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish Or Mexican Authorities

    Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish Or Mexican Authorities

    -::, » . .• f Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish or Mexican Authorities Prepared by the Staff of the State Lands Commission ----- -- -·- PREFACE This report was prepared by Cris Perez under direction of Lou Shafer. There were three main reasons for its preparation. First, it provides a convenient reference to patent data used by staff Boundary Officers and others who may find the information helpful. Secondly, this report provides a background for newer members who may be unfamiliar with Spanish and Mexican land grants and the general circumstances surrounding the transfer of land from Mexican to American dominion. Lastly, it provides sources for additional reading for those who may wish to study further. The report has not been reviewed by the Executive Staff of the Commission and has not been approved by the State Lands Commission. If there are any questions regarding this report, direct them to Cris Perez or myself at the Office of the State Lands Commission, 1807 - 13th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. ROY MINNICK, Supervisor Boundary Investigation Unit 0401L VI TABLE OF CONTENlS Preface UI List of Maps x Introduction 1 Private Land Claims in California 2 Missions, Presidios, and Pueblos 7 Explanation of Terms Used in This Report 14 GRANTS OF LAND BY COUNTY AlamE:1da County 15 Amador County 19 Butte County 21 Calaveras County 23 Colusa County 25 Contra Costa County 27 Fresno County 31 Glenn County 33 Kern County 35 Kings County 39 Lake County 41 Los Angeles County 43 Marin County 53 Mariposa County 57 Mendocino County
  • About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service

    About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service

    About WETA Maintenance Facility will consolidate Central and South Bay fleet operations, include a fueling facility with emergency fuel The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation storage capacity, and provide an alternative EOC location, Authority (WETA) is a regional public transit agency tasked with thereby significantly expanding WETA’s emergency response operating and expanding ferry service on the San Francisco and recovery capabilities. Bay, and is responsible for coordinating the water transit response to regional emergencies. Future Present WETA is planning for a system that seamlessly connects cities in the greater Bay Area with San Francisco, using Today, WETA operates daily passenger ferry service to the fast, environmentally responsible vessels, with wait times cities of Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco, Vallejo, and South of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. WETA’s San Francisco, carr4$)"(*- /#)тѵр million passengers 2035 vision would expand service throughout the Bay Area, annually under the San Francisco Bay Ferry brand. Over the operating 12 services at 16 terminals with a fleet of 44 vessels. last five years, SF Bay Ferry ridership has grown чф percent. In the near term, WETA will launch a Richmond/San Francisco route (201ш) and new service to Treasure Island. Other By the Numbers terminal sites such as Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda, Berkeley, Mission Bay, Redwood City, the South Bay, and the Carquinez *- /#)ǔǹǒ --$ ./-).+*-/0+ Strait are on the not-too-distant horizon. ($''$*)-$ -. /*ǗǕǑ$& .-*.. 0. 4 --4 /# 4 #4ǹ 1 -44 -ǹ A Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service --4-$ -.#$+ 1 )! --$ . Vallejo #.$)- . /*!' / /2 )ǓǑǒǘ CARQUINEZ STRAIT Ǚǖʞ.$) ǓǑǒǓǹ )ǓǑǓǑǹ Hercules WETA Expansion Targets Richmond Funded Traveling by ferry has become increasingly more popular in • Richmond Berkeley the Bay Area, as the economy continues to improve and the • Treasure Island Partially Funded Pier 41 Treasure Island population grows.
  • ACA Newsletter 21

    ACA Newsletter 21

    UP YOUR CREEK ! ALAMEDA CREEK ALLIANCE NEWSLETTER Issue 21 Winter 2005/2006 CALAVERAS DAM REPLACEMENT PROJECT ALAMEDA CREEK ALLIANCE Protecting and restoring the natural ecosystems of the Alameda Creek watershed P. O. Box 192 Canyon, CA 94516 (510) 499-9185 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.alamedacreek.org STEELHEAD RETURN FOR NINTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR Steelhead trout seen in lower Alameda Creek on December 29th and 30th were likely blown out by the historic New Year storm, which brought Alameda Creek flow up to 10,000 cubic feet/second in lower Planning for the replacement of Calaveras Dam Niles Canyon and 18,000 cfs in the flood control lurches forward, with the San Francisco Public channel in Union City!!!! Steelhead were again seen at Utilities Commission (SFPUC) hoping to remove the the weir on March 3rd. On March 4th ACA volunteers seismically inadequate dam and have the rebuilt dam and the East Bay Parks biologist, with cooperation completed and operational by 2011. The ACA, from the Alameda County Water District and Alameda concerned that fish restoration elements are being County Flood Control District, helped rescue two adult left out of the project while engineering plans move males from below the BART weir and move them rapidly forward, asked the SFPUC in December to upstream into Niles Canyon. One of the fish, given the revise the project to include steelhead and stream name “Brutus”, was the largest steelhead documented restoration elements. Although the SFPUC declined yet in the creek, weighing 11 pounds and measuring to change the project description before approving 31 inches.
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal

    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
  • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

    Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

    December 20, 2012 San Francisco HQ Atlanta PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Chicago Dallas Property Identification: Edgewater Park Plaza 7700 Edgewater Drive Oakland, Alameda County, California 94621 Denver AEI Project No. 315265 Irvine Prepared for: Los Angeles CCIG 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 340 Oakland, California 94612 Miami Prepared by: New York AEI Consultants 2500 Camino Diablo Walnut Creek, California 94597 (925) 746-6000 Phoenix Portland San Jose PROJECT SUMMARY Edgewater Park Plaza 7700 Edgewater Drive, Oakland, Alameda County, California Report Section No REC HREC BER Recommended Action Further Action 2.1 Current use of X subject property 2.2 Adjoining X property information 3.1 Historical X X Summary 4.0 Regulatory X X Agency Records Review 5.0 Regulatory X Database Records Review 6.3 Previous Reports X X 7.0 Site Inspection X and Reconnaissance 7.2.1 Asbestos- X X Containing Materials 7.2.2 Lead-Based Paint X X 7.2.3 Radon X 7.2.4 Lead in Drinking X Water 7.2.5 Mold X Project No. 315265 December 20, 2012 Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AEI Consultants (AEI) was retained by CCIG to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-05 and the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312) for the property located at 7700 Edgewater Drive in the City of Oakland, Alameda County, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.3 of this report.
  • Central Coast

    Central Coast

    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
  • 2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025

    2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025

    2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025 7. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Table of Contents page page BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE.................................................. 7-1 Tables SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................ 7-1 Table 7-1 Potential Wildlife Species of Concern in the RESOURCE CONSERVATION ..................................................... 7-2 Planning Area ........................................................... 7-3 Animal Life.......................................................................... 7-2 Table 7-2 Potential Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Plants Plant Life............................................................................. 7-4 in the Planning Area .................................................. 7-6 Soil Resources ..................................................................... 7-9 Table 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods and Structures ..................... 7-15 Sand and Gravel............................................................... 7-10 Cultural Resources............................................................. 7-11 Figures OPEN SPACE LANDS............................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-1 Generalized Land Cover, 2005 .................................. 7-5 Recreational Open Space................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-2 Aggregate Resources and Reclamation ...................... 7-12 Water Management, Habitat, and Recreation...................... 7-24 Figure 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods
  • Contra Costa County

    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).
  • Historic Resource Study

    Historic Resource Study

    HAWTHORNS HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Windy Hill Open Space Preserve Portola Valley, California Deliverable 1: Historic Resource Study October 2013 FINAL October 2013 Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment FINAL Historic Resource Study TABLE OF CONTENTS HAWTHORNS HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY I. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 II. Historic Overview & Contexts................................................................................ 5 III. Physical Description & Character-Defining Features .......................................... 58 IV. Historic Resource Evaluation ............................................................................ 105 V. Bibliography....................................................................................................... 109 VI. Endnotes VII. Appendix A. Methodology B. Drawings: Hawthorn House, Garage and Cottage October 2013 Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment FINAL Historic Resource Study I. INTRODUCTION Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment The Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment is a project undertaken by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) to assess the history and condition of the Hawthorn property. The District is a special district whose purpose is to purchase, permanently protect, and restore lands forming a regional open space greenbelt, preserve unspoiled wilderness, wildlife habitat, watershed,
  • 12.4 Groups Groups 12.4

    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4

    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4 GROUPS GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PEIR Comment Letter Comment Letter Name of Organization/ Format ID Commenter Title Affiliation Page Email SI_ACA1 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.4-1 PH Fremont SI_ACA2 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.6-52 David T. Smernoff, Board Acterra: Action for a Email SI_ACT 12.4-12 Ph.D. Vice President Sustainable Earth Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC1 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC2 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Chief Executive Mail SI_Caltrout Brian Stranko California Trout 12.4-14 Officer Republicans for Environmental Buddy Burke / CA REP President & Protection, Protection Email SI_CAREP Virginia Chang CA REP Vice 12.4-14 Commissioner, California Kiraly President Commission for Economic Development PH Palo Alto SI_CI Katherine Forrest Member Commonwealth Institute 12.6-77 California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS Amanda Jorgenson Executive Director 12.4-15 Society California Native Plant Conservation Email SI_CNPS-EB1 Laura Baker Society, East Bay 12.4-15 Committee Chair Chapter California Native Plant PH Fremont SI_CNPS-EB2 Lech Naumovich Society, East Bay 12.6-56 Chapter California Native Plant President, Santa Email SI_CNPS-SCV1 Kevin Bryant Society, Santa Clara 12.4-33 Clara Valley Chapter Valley Chapter California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS-SCV2 Libby Lucas Conservation Society, Santa Clara 12.4-36 Valley Chapter SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 12.4-i