DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Quality Control Plan Was Prepared Under the Direction of Michael P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Quality Control Plan Was Prepared Under the Direction of Michael P JUNE 21, 1995 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 2101 Webster Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 286-1255 Approved by California State Water Resources Control Board on July 20, 1995. California State Office of Administrative Law on November 13, 1995. WATER QU A L I T Y CONTROL PL A N STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON JAMES M. STROCK Governor Secretary, Environmental Protection Agency State Water Resources Control Board John P. Caffrey Mary Jane Forster Chair Member Marc Del Piero James M. Stubchaer Vice Chair Member John W. Brown Walt Pettit Member Executive Director California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Peter W. Snyder Pamela W. Lloyd County Government Water Quality Chair Member Craig S.J. Johns Richard L. Maher Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Industrial Water Use Vice-Chair Member Josephine T. De Luca Denny A. McLeod Public Municipal Government Member Member E. Jackson Going Jr. Loretta K. Barsamian Water Quality Executive Officer Member This Water Quality Control Plan was prepared under the direction of Michael P. Carlin Chief, Basin Planning by Randy Y. Lee Kim A. Taylor Associate Water Resources Control Engineer Ph.D., Environmental Specialist III with assistance from the following Regional Board staff Thomas R. Gandesbery Peggy R. Olofson Environmental Specialist III Water Resources Control Engineer Jessica Lacy Steven R. Ritchie Assoc. Water Resources Control Engineer, 1990-1995 Executive Officer, 1988-1995 Steven M. Moore Linda L. Spencer Sanitary Engineering Associate Associate Engineering Geologist Stephen I. Morse A. Lynn Suer Chief, Toxics Cleanup Division Ph.D., Environmental Specialist IV Thomas E. Mumley Dyan C. Whyte Ph.D., Associate Water Resources Control Engineer Associate Engineering Geologist and assistance from the following State Board staff Joanne Cox Sheila Vassey Environmental Specialist III Staff Counsel III John Ladd Chief, Basin Planning Unit Production Kathryn Ankrum Carrie Salazar Technical Editor GIS Specialist Darren Campeau Cover Graphic Designer Satellite Image: “The San Francisco Bay from Space” (Copyright; Spaceshots, Inc. 1-800-272-2779) SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 0-3 TTABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The San Francisco Bay Region..................................................................................................................1-1 The Bay System’s Surface and Ground Waters.......................................................................................1-1 The Regional Board.....................................................................................................................................1-2 Water Quality Control Plan........................................................................................................................1-2 Watershed Management Planning.............................................................................................................1-3 The San Francisco Estuary Project...........................................................................................................1-3 CHAPTER 2: BENEFICIAL USES Definitions of Beneficial Uses ..................................................................................................................2-1 Agricultural Supply .............................................................................................................................2-1 Areas of Special Biological Significance..........................................................................................2-1 Cold Freshwater Habitat ...................................................................................................................2-2 Ocean, Commercial, and Sport Fishing ...........................................................................................2-2 Estuarine Habitat ................................................................................................................................2-2 Freshwater Replenishment ...............................................................................................................2-2 Groundwater Recharge ......................................................................................................................2-2 Industrial Service Supply ...................................................................................................................2-2 Marine Habitat ....................................................................................................................................2-2 Municipal and Domestic Supply........................................................................................................2-3 Navigation ............................................................................................................................................2-3 Industrial Process Supply ..................................................................................................................2-3 Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species...............................................................................2-3 Water Contact Recreation .................................................................................................................2-3 Noncontact Water Recreation ..........................................................................................................2-4 Shellfish Harvesting ...........................................................................................................................2-4 Fish Spawning .....................................................................................................................................2-4 Warm Freshwater Habitat .................................................................................................................2-4 Wildlife Habitat ...................................................................................................................................2-4 Present and Potential Beneficial Uses .....................................................................................................2-5 Surface Waters.....................................................................................................................................2-5 Groundwaters.......................................................................................................................................2-5 Wetlands...............................................................................................................................................2-6 CHAPTER 3: WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES Water Quality Objectives............................................................................................................................3-1 Objectives for Ocean Waters ....................................................................................................................3-2 Objectives for Surface Waters ..................................................................................................................3-2 Bacteria.................................................................................................................................................3-2 Bioaccumulation..................................................................................................................................3-2 Biostimulatory Substances.................................................................................................................3-2 Color......................................................................................................................................................3-3 Dissolved Oxygen................................................................................................................................3-3 Floating Material..................................................................................................................................3-3 Oil and Grease......................................................................................................................................3-3 Population and Community Ecology................................................................................................3-3 pH...........................................................................................................................................................3-3 Salinity...................................................................................................................................................3-3 Sediment...............................................................................................................................................3-3 Settleable Material...............................................................................................................................3-3 Suspended Material.............................................................................................................................3-3 Sulfide...................................................................................................................................................3-3 Tastes and Odors.................................................................................................................................3-4 Temperature.........................................................................................................................................3-4 Toxicity.................................................................................................................................................3-4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)
    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) August 2002 Prepared By Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup For Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Approved: Date: Disclaimer Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved Recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Some of the techniques outlined for recovery efforts in this plan are completely new regarding this subspecies. Therefore, the cost and time estimates are approximations. Citations This document should be cited as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service 5430 Governor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 i This Recovery Plan was prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup: Deborah M.
    [Show full text]
  • R-17-76 Meeting 17-15 June 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 15 AGENDA ITEM
    R-17-76 Meeting 17-15 June 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 15 AGENDA ITEM Amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to include One Proposed New Trail Loop and New Trail Names for the Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve an amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to add a one-mile trail loop; 2. Approve the following trail names: “Harrington Creek Trail” for the main ranch road in lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve; “Folger Ranch Loop Trail” for a new loop trail off the main ranch road; “Coho Vista Trail” for the existing trail to the vista point in upper La Honda Creek; and “Cielo Trail” for an existing trail leading to the Redwood Cabin area. SUMMARY Phase I implementation of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (OSP) Master Plan includes opening the Sears Ranch Road Parking Area, establishing the main Driscoll Ranch road in lower La Honda Creek as a hiking and equestrian trail, and providing permit-only equestrian parking at the former Event Center. The General Manager recommends adding an additional one-mile segment of an existing ranch road to the Phase I Trails Plan, to provide a seasonal loop opportunity, as an amendment to the Master Plan. In preparation for the opening of the Preserve, the General Manager also recommends new trail names for lower and upper La Honda Creek. The proposed trail names for lower La Honda Creek are: “Harrington Creek Trail” for the main ranch road and “Folger Ranch Trail” for the new loop.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of San Mateo County San Pedro San Pedro Creek flows northwesterly, entering the Pacific Ocean at Pacifica State Beach. It drains a watershed about eight square miles in area. The upper portions of the drainage contain springs (feeding the south and middle forks) that produce perennial flow in the creek. Documents with information regarding steelhead in the San Pedro Creek watershed may refer to the North Fork San Pedro Creek and the Sanchez Fork. For purposes of this report, these tributaries are considered as part of the mainstem. A 1912 letter regarding San Mateo County streams indicates that San Pedro Creek was stocked. A fishway also is noted on the creek (Smith 1912). Titus et al. (in prep.) note DFG records of steelhead spawning in the creek in 1941. In 1968, DFG staff estimated that the San Pedro Creek steelhead run consisted of 100 individuals (Wood 1968). A 1973 stream survey report notes, “Spawning habitat is a limiting factor for steelhead” (DFG 1973a, p. 2). The report called the steelhead resources of San Pedro Creek “viable and important” but cited passage at culverts, summer water diversion, and urbanization effects on the stream channel and watershed hydrology as placing “the long-term survival of the steelhead resource in question”(DFG 1973a, p. 5). The lower portions of San Pedro Creek were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1989. Three O. mykiss year classes were observed during the study throughout the lower creek. Researchers noticed “a marked exodus from the lower creek during the late summer” of yearling and age 2+ individuals, many of which showed “typical smolt characteristics” (Sullivan 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------) 14
    (ENDORSED) 1 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, Chief Counsel ANDREW H. SAWYER, Assistant Chief Counsel 2 M. G. TAYLOR, III, Senior Staff Counsel FILED • BARBARA A. KATZ, Staff Counsel JAN 2 9 1993 3 901 P Street WARREN SLOCUM, County C!cri( Sacramento, California 95814 j:,\!l;.l"'if' ",.,;;."""" ''­ :':y , J:.;i";J 1 "~1."""....ii, ..': .. ;• .'.~ 4 Telephone: (916) 657 -209 7 • C'EPu;Y C~:~~~~ 5 Attorneys for the State Water Resources Control Board 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 In the Matter of the ) No. 355792 Determination of the Rights of ) 10 the various Claimants to the ) DECREE Water of ) 11 ) SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------------------------------) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................. i . , , 4 INDEX OF CLAIMANTS ........................................... iii " 5 Defini tions ............................................. 2 6 State Water Resources Control Board Map ................. 4 7 General. Entitlement ..................................... 4 8 Priori ty of Rights ...................................... 5 9 Post-1914 Appropriations ................................ 6 10 Seasons of Use .......................................... 7 11 Domestic Use ............................................ 7 12 S tockwa tering Use ....................................... 7 13 Irrigation Use .......................................... 8 14 Domestic and Stockwatering Uses During
    [Show full text]
  • MAA 5 Year Approved Projects List FY 2018‐19 Through FY 2022‐23
    Attachment 5 MAA 5 Year Approved Projects List FY 2018‐19 through FY 2022‐23 MAA Portfolio No. Project Name Project Description AA01‐ Miramontes Ridge: Replace current interior bridge with bridge or culvert crossing. The Madonna Bridge Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream current bridge is weight limited and does not allow for emergency Replacement Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement vehicle access. Investigate and implement alternative water supply at Madonna Creek AA01‐ Miramontes Ridge: Water Infrastructure Ranch to replace agricultural water currently provided through in‐ Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Development stream impoundment on steelhead fisheries stream. Develop and Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement implement restoration plans for Madonna Creek. AA01‐ Miramontes Ridge: Pursue Land Conservation Purchase uplands portion of Johnston Ranch from POST as an addition Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Opportunities to the Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve. Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement AA01‐ Miramontes Ridge: Pursue Public Access Pursue partnerships with other public agencies to improve public Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Partnerships with Other access and preserve scenic open space in Miramontes Ridge Open Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement Public Agencies Space Preserve. Work with partners to purchase or otherwise secure public access AA02‐ Regional: Bayfront Habitat Protection Pursue Land Conservation rights on remaining properties needed to close gaps on the San and Public Access Partnerships Opportunities Francisco Bay Trail in the vicinity of Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. Cooley Landing ‐ AA02‐ Regional: Bayfront Habitat Protection New interpretative facilities, infrastructure, and signage related to Interpretative Facilities & and Public Access Partnerships Cooley Landing Park. Infrastructure Secure and record trail easement.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS
    San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS Introduction The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (Program) performs Watershed Assessment and Monitoring (WAM) component activities in compliance with its municipal stormwater NPDES permit requirements. In the past, a consistent countywide watershed boundary data layer has not been available to meet Program needs for mapping and analyzing watershed-related data. As a result, the Program has previously utilized the best existing available data sets and/or developed new data to meet the objectives of specific individual projects. For example, creek location and watershed boundary data were developed to characterize imperviousness and channel modifications in seventeen watersheds in San Mateo County (STOPPP 2002). In another example, Program staff compiled existing countywide watershed data and developed new data needed to identify watershed areas considered exempt from Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) requirements (STOPPP 2005). The Program previously identified two major information gaps in digital watershed boundary data: 1) limited storm drain catchment data were available for urban areas and 2) consistent countywide watershed data layers were not available (STOPPP 2005). Recent development of watershed data in urbanized portions of San Mateo County has provided an opportunity to address these information gaps. This memo describes the methods used by Program staff to create a consistent countywide watershed data layer that includes delineation of storm drain catchments in urban areas. Consistent watershed and creek data set will assist Program staff in watershed characterization and the identification and prioritization of potential future monitoring and watershed assessment activities. Background In 1999, the State of California developed a statewide watershed data layer entitled the California Interagency Watershed Map (Calwater).
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 12-1986 Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation California Regional Water Quality Control Board, "Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)" (1986). California Agencies. Paper 393. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/393 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATER QUA~ITY · CONTROL PLAN Cover photo by: MICHAEL DRENNAN. Senior Water Resources Engineer San Francisco Bay Region DONALD E. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN PETER W. SNYDER, VICE CHAIRMAN* FRED KLATTE* JANICE E. MONDAVI MARION OTSEA • KENNETH R. MERCER JEPTHA WADE PHILIP WENTE *Basin Plan Committee 1986 3 F N R R This report was prepared under the direction of Roger B. James ......................................................................... Executive Officer Lawrence P. Kolb ...................................................................... Assistant Executive Officer Richard H. Whitsel ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Park Campaign
    THE GREAT PARK CAMPAIGN Protecting and Connecting the Redwood Forests FINAL REPORT – SPRING 2016 LETTER FROM THE CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIRS With your help... Carrie Drake/SVF we did it! Together, we did it! Jacqueline Wender and Diane Talbert Four years ago Sempervirens Fund defined a new, unprecedented vision for the Santa Cruz Mountains — the Great Park. To embark on that vision, we set an ambitious goal to raise $22 million in a Great Park Campaign. The purpose of this campaign was to provide Sempervirens Fund with the financial resources to (1) protect and steward key redwood forest lands; (2) develop a new entrance to Castle Rock State Park; and (3) continue the education, outreach and fundraising activities that connect people, young and old, with the redwoods. These initiatives are, in essence, the core of Sempervirens Fund’s mission to preserve and protect redwood forest habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains. We asked you to stretch high (and to dig deep!) to help reach our goal, and you did. We are very grateful. As of December 31, 2015, we met our $22 million campaign goal. Thanks to you, we protected 9,284 acres of redwood forests. We completed plans for the new entrance at Castle Rock State Park and will start Phase I construction by late summer. And we made new friends, strengthened important partnerships, and cultivated a new generation of redwood enthusiasts along the way. Our deepest thanks to each and every one of you for what you have made possible! Thanks to our fellow Board and Campaign Committee members.
    [Show full text]
  • Count of LLID and Sum of Miles Per State, RU, and Core Area for Current Presence
    Count of LLID and Sum of Miles Per State, RU, and Core Area For Current Presence STATE wa RecoveryUnit CORE_AREA NAME SumOfMILES Chilliwack River 0.424000 Columbia River 194.728000 Depot Creek 0.728000 Kettle River 0.001000 Palouse River 6.209000 Silesia Creek 0.374000 Skagit River 0.258000 Snake River 58.637000 Sumas River 1.449000 Yakima River 0.845000 Summary for 'CORE_AREA' = (10 detail records) SumMilesPerCoreArea 263.653000 CountLLIDPerCoreArea 10 SumMilesPerRUAndCoreArea 263.653000 CountLLIDPerRUAndCoreArea 10 Saturday, January 01, 2005 Page 1 of 46 STATE wa RecoveryUnit Clark Fork River Basin CORE_AREA Priest Lake NAME SumOfMILES Bench Creek 2.114000 Cache Creek 2.898000 Gold Creek 3.269000 Jackson Creek 3.140000 Kalispell Creek 15.541000 Muskegon Creek 1.838000 North Fork Granite Creek 6.642000 Sema Creek 4.365000 South Fork Granite Creek 12.461000 Tillicum Creek 0.742000 Summary for 'CORE_AREA' = Priest Lake (10 detail records) SumMilesPerCoreArea 53.010000 CountLLIDPerCoreArea 10 SumMilesPerRUAndCoreArea 53.010000 CountLLIDPerRUAndCoreArea 10 RecoveryUnit Clearwater River Basin CORE_AREA Lower and Middle Fork Clearwater River NAME SumOfMILES Bess Creek 1.770000 Snake River 0.077000 Summary for 'CORE_AREA' = Lower and Middle Fork Clearwater River (2 detail records) SumMilesPerCoreArea 1.847000 CountLLIDPerCoreArea 2 SumMilesPerRUAndCoreArea 1.847000 CountLLIDPerRUAndCoreArea 2 Saturday, January 01, 2005 Page 2 of 46 STATE wa RecoveryUnit Columbia River CORE_AREA NAME SumOfMILES Columbia River 98.250000 Summary for 'CORE_AREA'
    [Show full text]
  • 69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers
    69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers American Rivers releases annual list including dams in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin for a total of 23 states. Nationwide, 1,797 dams have been removed from 1912 through 2020. Dam removal brings a variety of benefits to local communities, including restoring river health and clean water, revitalizing fish and wildlife, improving public safety and recreation, and enhancing local economies. Working in a variety of functions with partner organizations throughout the country, American Rivers contributed financial and technical support in many of the removals. Contact information is provided for dam removals, if available. For further information about the list, please contact Jessie Thomas-Blate, American Rivers, Director of River Restoration at 202.347.7550 or [email protected]. This list includes all dam removals reported to American Rivers (as of February 10, 2021) that occurred in 2020, regardless of the level of American Rivers’ involvement. Inclusion on this list does not indicate endorsement by American Rivers. Dams are categorized alphabetically by state. Beale Dam, Dry Creek, California A 2016 anadromous salmonid habitat assessment stated that migratory salmonids were not likely accessing habitat upstream of Beale Lake due to the presence of the dam and an undersized pool and weir fishway. In 2020, Beale Dam, owned by the U.S. Air Force, was removed and a nature-like fishway was constructed at the upstream end of Beale Lake to address the natural falls that remain a partial barrier following dam removal.
    [Show full text]
  • 443 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards
    Environmental Protection Agency § 131.33 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated of streams located in Indian country, Water Quality Standards or as may be modified by the Regional Administrator, EPA Region X, pursu- § 131.31 Arizona. ant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, ° (a) [Reserved] a temperature criterion of 10 C, ex- (b) The following waters have, in ad- pressed as an average of daily max- dition to the uses designated by the imum temperatures over a seven-day State, the designated use of fish con- period, applies to the waterbodies iden- sumption as defined in R18–11–101 tified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section (which is available from the Arizona during the months of June, July, Au- Department of Environmental Quality, gust and September. Water Quality Division, 3033 North (2) The following waters are pro- Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85012): tected for bull trout spawning and rearing: COLORADO MAIN STEM RIVER (i) BOISE-MORE BASIN: Devils BASIN: Creek, East Fork Sheep Creek, Sheep Hualapai Wash MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN: Creek. Agua Fria River (Camelback Road to (ii) BROWNLEE RESERVOIR BASIN: Avondale WWTP) Crooked River, Indian Creek. Galena Gulch (iii) CLEARWATER BASIN: Big Can- Gila River (Felix Road to the Salt yon Creek, Cougar Creek, Feather River) Creek, Laguna Creek, Lolo Creek, Queen Creek (Headwaters to the Su- Orofino Creek, Talapus Creek, West perior WWTP) Fork Potlatch River. Queen Creek (Below Potts Canyon) (iv) COEUR D’ALENE LAKE BASIN: SAN PEDRO RIVER BASIN: Cougar Creek, Fernan Creek, Kid Copper Creek Creek, Mica Creek, South Fork Mica SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN: Creek, Squaw Creek, Turner Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) Resources South of the Golden Gate, California
    Becker Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Reining (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Resources South of the Golden Gate, California October 2008 Gordon S. Becker #ENTERFOR%COSYSTEM-ANAGEMENT2ESTORATION Isabelle J. Reining (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Cartography by David A. Asbury Prepared for California State Coastal Conservancy and The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Resources South of the Golden Gate, California Resources South of the Golden Gate, California The mission of the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration is to make effective use of scientific information to promote the restoration and sustainable management of ecosystems. The Center is a not-for-profit corporation, and contributions in support of its programs are tax-deductible. Center for Ecosystem Management & Restoration 4179 Piedmont Ave, Suite 325, Oakland, CA 94611 Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 510.420.4565 http://www.cemar.org CEMAR The cover image is a map of the watershed area of streams tributary to the Pacific Ocean south of the Golden Gate, California, by CEMAR. The image above is a 1934 Gazos Creek stream survey report published by the California Division of Fish and Game. Book design by Audrey Kallander. Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Resources South of the Golden Gate, California Gordon S. Becker Isabelle J. Reining Cartography by David A. Asbury This report should be cited as: Becker, G.S. and I.J. Reining. 2008. Steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) resources south of the Golden Gate, California. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreward pg. 3 Introduction pg.
    [Show full text]