DOCSLIB.ORG

Sediment Supply to San Francisco

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sediment Supply to San Francisco CONTRIBUTION NO. 842 JUNE 2018 Sediment Supply to San Francisco Bay, Water Years 1995 through 2016: Data, trends, and monitoring recommendations to support decisions about water quality, tidal wetlands, and resilience to sea level rise Prepared by United States Geological Survey David Schoellhamer and Mathieu Marineau San Francisco Estuary Institute Lester McKee, Sarah Pearce, Pete Kauhanen, Micha Salomon, Scott Dusterhoff, Letitia Grenier, and Philip Trowbridge SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE • CLEAN WATER PROGRAM/RMP • 4911 CENTRAL AVE., RICHMOND, CA • WWW.SFEI.ORG Sediment Supply to San Francisco Bay, Water Years 1995 through 2016: Data, trends, and monitoring recommendations to support decisions about water quality, tidal wetlands, and resilience to sea level rise Prepared By: David Schoellhamer and Mathieu Marineau United States Geological Survey Sacramento, CA Lester McKee, Sarah Pearce, Pete Kauhanen, Micha Salomon, Scott Dusterhoff, Letitia Grenier, and Philip Trowbridge San Francisco Estuary Institute Richmond, CA June 11, 2018 SFEI Contribution # 842 Recommended Citation: Schoellhamer, D., L. McKee, S. Pearce, P. Kauhanen, M. Salomon, S. Dusterhoff, L. Grenier, M. Marineau, and P. Trowbridge. 2018. Sediment Supply to San Francisco Bay, Water Years 1995 through 2016: Data, trends, and monitoring recommendations to support decisions about water quality, tidal wetlands, and resilience to sea level rise. Published by San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. SFEI Contribution Number 842. ii Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. viii What are the magnitudes and sources of fine and coarse sediment transported to San Francisco Bay? ............................................................................................................. viii What are the present temporal trends of fine and coarse sediment supply to San Francisco Bay? ........................................................................................................ ix What are scenarios for future sediment supply to San Francisco Bay? .................................... x How can sediment monitoring be improved to fill data gaps and better provide information for resource managers? ............................................................................... xi 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Motivation and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1 Summary of Recent Regional Scale Projects on Sediment Supply to the Bay ......................... 2 2. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 5 Sediment Supply from the Delta ............................................................................................... 5 Sediment Supply from Bay Area Watersheds ......................................................................... 10 Sediment Transport Between Subembayments ....................................................................... 20 3. Results ........................................................................................................................... 22 Sediment Supply from the Delta ............................................................................................. 22 Sediment Supply from Bay Area Watersheds ......................................................................... 31 Sediment Transport Between Subembayments ....................................................................... 46 4. Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 50 What are the magnitudes and sources of fine and coarse sediment transported to San Francisco Bay? ....................................................................................................... 50 What are the present temporal trends of fine and coarse sediment supply to San Francisco Bay? ....................................................................................................... 56 What are scenarios for future sediment supply to San Francisco Bay? .................................. 61 How can sediment monitoring be improved to fill data gaps and better provide information for resource managers? .............................................................................. 63 5. References .................................................................................................................... 72 6. Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 78 iii Figures Figure 2.1. USGS suspended-sediment concentration monitoring stations in the Bay-Delta. ....... 6 Figure 2.2. Monitoring locations used for bedload computations. ................................................. 9 Figure 2.3. USGS stream gages in the San Francisco Bay Watershed. ........................................ 15 Figure 2.4. Sub-regional regression relations between peak discharge and suspended- sediment loads. .................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 3.1. Total annual discharge, suspended-sediment load, and mean suspended-sediment concentration (SSC) at Mallard Island for water years 1995-2016. ................................. 24 Figure 3.2. Double mass diagram for Mallard Island, water years 1995-2016. ........................... 25 Figure 3.3. Double mass diagram for the lower Sacramento River 9 km upstream from Mallard Island, water years 1976-2014. ........................................................................... 27 Figure 3.4. Proportional total sediment loads (top) and yields (bottom) by county in which discharge to the Bay is located. ......................................................................................... 40 Figure 3.5. Annual discharge, suspended-sediment load, and discharge-weighted mean SSC estimated for the small tributaries discharging to San Francisco Bay from the nine adjacent counties. .............................................................................................................. 42 Figure 3.6. Double mass diagram for six individual small tributaries. Different lines on the same plot indicate periods with continuous data that are separated by data gaps. ........... 45 Figure 3.7. Estimated seaward suspended-sediment flux at the Benicia Bridge for water years 2002-2016. ............................................................................................................... 48 Figure 3.8. Cumulative sediment deposition in Suisun Bay since October 1, 2001. Negative values indicate erosion. ..................................................................................................... 48 Figure 3.9. Suisun Bay deposition as a function of Delta outflow. Data are from Table 3.9. ...... 49 Figure 4.1. Net proportional total loads to the Bay from key large tributaries after accounting for storage and removal of sediment from flood control channels. .................................. 52 Figure 4.2. Suisun Bay deposition. 1867-1990 data are from Cappiella et al. (1999). ................. 61 Figure 4.3. Relative magnitudes of sources of sediment and estimated operating costs of selected monitoring activities. .......................................................................................... 71 iv Tables Table 3.1. Total annual discharge, suspended-sediment load, and mean suspended-sediment concentration at Mallard Island for water years 1995-2016. ............................................ 23 Table 3.2. Statistical comparison of lines fit to segments of the WY 1995-2016 double mass diagram from continuous data at Mallard Island (Figure 3.2). ......................................... 25 Table 3.3. Statistical comparison of lines fit to segments of the WY 1976-2014 double mass diagram from monthly data in the lower Sacramento River (Figure 3.3). ........................ 27 Table 3.4. Bedload estimates from downstream-most gages in the Delta at Sacramento River at Rio Vista (SRV) and San Joaquin at Jersey Point (SJJ) and mass of bed-material removed from mining and dredging operations between these gages and Mallard Island (MAL). ................................................................................................................... 29 Table 3.5. Bedload estimates from downstream-most gages in the Delta at Sacramento River at Rio Vista (SRV) and San Joaquin at Jersey Point (SJJ) and mass of bed-material removed from mining and dredging operations between these gages and Mallard Island (MAL). ................................................................................................................... 34 Table 3.6. Estimated bedload in units of metric tonnes (thousand t/yr) in key larger tributaries in the Bay Area as compared to the total regional estimate. ........................... 35 Table 3.7. Sediment storage and removal in the fluvial portions of larger small tributaries in metric tonnes (t) as compared to the sum of all available information for the region. ..... 36 Table 3.8. Summary of sediment loads (Million metric tonnes, Mt) entering the Bay at the head of tides from all small tributaries that drain to the Bay from the nine-county urbanized Bay Area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— Extensions Of
    E1758 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks December 9, 2014 RECOGNIZING THE 100TH RECOGNIZING THE DESERT VISTA His military education includes 19K (Tanker) ANNIVERSARY OF BOSCOV’S HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS CROSS OSUT, 88M (Truck Driver), Primary Leader- COUNTRY TEAM ship Development Course, Basic Noncommis- sioned Officer Course, Advanced Noncommis- HON. JIM GERLACH HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA sioned Officer Course, Basic Instructor Course, Recruiting and Retention School, OF PENNSYLVANIA OF ARIZONA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Driver Training Course, Mind Resistant AP In- IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES structor Course. Tuesday, December 9, 2014 He furthered his civilian education at Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to Coahoma Community College in Clarksdale, Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognize the Girls Cross Country Team of Mississippi where he graduated in 1999 with a partnership with my colleagues, Representa- Desert Vista High School in Phoenix, Arizona, technical certification in Barbering. His awards and decorations include: the tive CHARLIE DENT, Representative PAT MEE- home of the Thunder. On November 8, 2014, the team won the Division One State Cham- Army Commendation Medal, Army Reserve HAN, and Representative JOE PITTS, to recog- pionship in Cross Country, and the team’s Components Achievement Medal (3RD nize Boscov’s, one of the nation’s largest fam- captain, Senior Dani Jones, set a new course Award), National Defense Service Medal With ily-owned department store chains, on the
    [Show full text]
  • Foster City, a Planned Community in the San Francisco Bay Area
    FOS T ER CI T Y - A NEW CI T Y ON T HE BAY A TRIBU T E T O PROFESSOR MI C HAEL MCDOUGALL KAL V IN PLATT As a tribute to Michael McDougall, long-time friend and colleague, Kalvin Platt revisits the Kalvin Platt, FAIA, is project for Foster City, a planned community in the San Francisco Bay Area. Mike was a Chairman of the SWA Group, an International principal planner and designer of this successful story of a new community which, as early Planning and Landscape as 1958, pioneered several planning and urban design maxims that we value today in good Architectural consulting place-making and sustainability. Foster City is a lesson for all of us. firm with 7 offices and award winning projects around the world. Mr. Platt has In the early 1960s; when I came to California as a planner and joined Wilsey, Ham, and Blair, an extensive experience Engineering and Planning Company in Millbrae; I met Michael McDougall. He was working on Foster in Planning New Towns and Communities, City, a new town along the San Francisco Bay. The sinuous “Venice-like” lagoon system that formed Sustainable Land the backbone of the plan amazed me with its inherent beauty and appropriateness to the natural Planning, Urban sloughs that ran along the Bay. What also amazed me was that this was a Master Planned New Design and Park and Town, the first significant effort of this post-WWII large scale planning concept in California and it had Conservation Planning. begun to be built as planned.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal
    Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Sacramento River Summary Report August 4Th-5Th, 2008
    Upper Sacramento River Summary Report August 4th-5th, 2008 California Department of Fish and Game Heritage and Wild Trout Program Prepared by Jeff Weaver and Stephanie Mehalick Introduction: The 400-mile long Sacramento River system is the largest watershed in the state of California, encompassing the McCloud, Pit, American, and Feather Rivers, and numerous smaller tributaries, in total draining nearly one-fifth of the state. From the headwaters downstream to Shasta Lake, referred to hereafter as the Upper Sacramento, this portion of the Sacramento River is a designated Wild Trout Water (with the exception of a small section near the town of Dunsmuir, which is a stocked put-and-take fishery) (Figure 1). The California Department of Fish and Game’s (DFG) Heritage and Wild Trout Program (HWTP) monitors this fishery through voluntary angler survey boxes, creel census, direct observation snorkel surveys, electrofishing surveys, and habitat analyses. The HWTP has repeated sampling over time in a number of sections to obtain trend data related to species composition, trout densities, and habitat condition to aid in the management of this popular sport fishery. In August 2008, the HWTP resurveyed four historic direct observation survey sections on the Upper Sacramento. Methods: Surveys occurred between August 4th and 5th, 2008 with the aid of HWTP personnel and DFG volunteers. Sections were identified prior to the start of the surveys using GPS coordinates, written directions, and past experience. Fish were counted via direct observation snorkel surveys, an effective survey technique in many streams and creeks in California and the Pacific Northwest (Hankin & Reeves, 1988).
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento River Flood Control System
    A p pp pr ro x im a te ly 5 0 M il Sacramento River le es Shasta Dam and Lake ek s rre N Operating Agency: USBR C o rt rr reek th Dam Elevation: 1,077.5 ft llde Cre 70 I E eer GrossMoulton Pool Area: 29,500 Weir ac AB D Gross Pool Capacity: 4,552,000 ac-ft Flood Control System Medford !( OREGON IDAHOIDAHO l l a a n n a a C C !( Redding kk ee PLUMAS CO a e a s rr s u C u s l l Reno s o !( ome o 99 h C AB Th C NEVADA - - ^_ a a Sacramento m TEHAMA CO aa hh ee !( TT San Francisco !( Fresno Las Vegas !( kk ee e e !( rr Bakersfield 5 CC %&'( PACIFIC oo 5 ! Los Angeles cc !( S ii OCEAN a hh c CC r a S to m San Diego on gg !( ny ii en C BB re kk ee ee k t ee Black Butte o rr C Reservoir R i dd 70 v uu Paradise AB Oroville Dam - Lake Oroville Hamilton e M Operating Agency: CA Dept of Water Resources r Dam Elevation: 922 ft City Chico Gross Pool Area: 15,800 ac Gross Pool Capacity: 3,538,000 ac-ft M & T Overflow Area Black Butte Dam and Lake Operating Agency: USACE Dam Elevation: 515 ft Tisdale Weir Gross Pool Area: 4,378 ac 3 B's GrossMoulton Pool Capacity: 136,193Weir ac-ft Overflow Area BUTTE CO New Bullards Bar Dam and Lake Operating Agency: Yuba County Water Agency Dam Elevation: 1965 ft Gross Pool Area: 4,790 ac Goose Lake Gross Pool Capacity: 966,000 ac-ft Overflow Area Lake AB149 kk ee rree Oroville Tisdale Weir C GLENN CO ee tttt uu BB 5 ! Oroville New Bullards Bar Reservoir AB49 ll Moulton Weir aa nn Constructed: 1932 Butte aa CC Length: 500 feet Thermalito Design capacity of weir: 40,000 cfs Design capacity of river d/s of weir: 110,000 cfs Afterbay Moulton Weir e ke rro he 5 C ! Basin e kk Cre 5 ! tt 5 ! u Butte Basin and Butte Sink oncu H Flow from the 3 overflow areas upstream Colusa Weir of the project levees, from Moulton Weir, Constructed: 1933 and from Colusa Weir flows into the Length: 1,650 feet Butte Basin and Sink.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2021 | City of Alameda, California
    March 2021 | City of Alameda, California DRAFT ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 CONTENTS 04 MARCH 2021 City of Alameda, California MOBILITY ELEMENT 78 01 05 GENERAL PLAN ORGANIZATION + THEMES 6 HOUSING ELEMENT FROM 2014 02 06 LAND USE + CITY DESIGN ELEMENT 22 PARKS + OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 100 03 07 CONSERVATION + CLIMATE ACTION 54 HEALTH + SAFETY ELEMENT 116 ELEMENT MARCH 2021 DRAFT 1 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD: PRESIDENT Alan H. Teague VICE PRESIDENT Asheshh Saheba BOARD MEMBERS Xiomara Cisneros Ronald Curtis Hanson Hom Rona Rothenberg Teresa Ruiz POLICY, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS: Amie MacPhee, AICP, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Sheffield Hale, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Candice Miller, Cultivate, Lead Graphic Designer PHOTOGRAPHY: Amie MacPhee Maurice Ramirez Alain McLaughlin MARCH 2021 DRAFT 3 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 FORWARD Preparation of the Alameda General Plan 2040 began in 2018 and took shape over a three-year period during which time residents, businesses, community groups, and decision-makers reviewed, revised and refined plan goals, policy statements and priorities, and associated recommended actions. In 2020, the Alameda Planning Board held four public forums to review and discuss the draft General Plan. Over 1,500 individuals provided written comments and suggestions for improvements to the draft Plan through the General Plan update website. General Plan 2040 also benefited from recommendations and suggestions from: ≠ Commission on People with Disabilities ≠ Golden
    [Show full text]
  • Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents to Discover the Past and Imagine the Future
    Winter 2014-2015 LaThe Journal of the SanPeninsula Mateo County Historical Association, Volume xliii, No. 1 Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents To discover the past and imagine the future. Is it Time for a Portolá Trail Designation in San Mateo County? ....................... 3 by Paul O. Reimer, P.E. Our Mission Development of Foster City: A Photo Essay .................................................... 15 To enrich, excite and by T. Jack Foster, Jr. educate through understanding, preserving The San Mateo County Historical Association Board of Directors and interpreting the history Paul Barulich, Chairman; Barbara Pierce, Vice Chairwoman; Shawn DeLuna, Secretary; of San Mateo County. Dee Tolles, Treasurer; Thomas Ames; Alpio Barbara; Keith Bautista; Sandra McLellan Behling; John Blake; Elaine Breeze; David Canepa; Tracy De Leuw; Dee Eva; Ted Everett; Accredited Pat Hawkins; Mark Jamison; Peggy Bort Jones; Doug Keyston; John LaTorra; Joan by the American Alliance Levy; Emmet W. MacCorkle; Karen S. McCown; Nick Marikian; Olivia Garcia Martinez; Gene Mullin; Bob Oyster; Patrick Ryan; Paul Shepherd; John Shroyer; Bill Stronck; of Museums. Joseph Welch III; Shawn White and Mitchell P. Postel, President. President’s Advisory Board Albert A. Acena; Arthur H. Bredenbeck; John Clinton; Robert M. Desky; T. Jack Foster, The San Mateo County Jr.; Umang Gupta; Greg Munks; Phill Raiser; Cynthia L. Schreurs and John Schrup. Historical Association Leadership Council operates the San Mateo John C. Adams, Wells Fargo; Jenny Johnson, Franklin Templeton Investments; Barry County History Museum Jolette, San Mateo Credit Union and Paul Shepherd, Cargill. and Archives at the old San Mateo County Courthouse La Peninsula located in Redwood City, Carmen J.
    [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]
  • (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]