DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment for Sonoma County, CA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment for Sonoma County, CA Supplemental Environmental Assessment to the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Recurring Actions in Arizona, California, and Nevada Stabilization and Revegetation of Hood Mountain Sonoma County, California HMGP # 4344-0302-33 September 2020 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, California 94607 This document was prepared by CDM Smith 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1418 San Francisco, CA 94104 Contract No. HSFE60‐15‐D‐0015 Task Order No. 70FA6018F00000056 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Scope of Document .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action ..................................................................................... 1 2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................. 2 2.1 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 8 3.1 Resources Not Present ...................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Geology, Soils, and Topography ...................................................................................... 9 3.3 Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................. 11 3.4.1 Surface Water and Groundwater ............................................................................. 11 3.4.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 11 3.4.3 Floodplains .............................................................................................................. 12 3.5 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 12 3.5.1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat ............................................................................... 12 3.5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................... 13 3.5.3 Migratory Birds ....................................................................................................... 13 3.5.4 Invasive Species ...................................................................................................... 14 3.6 Historic Properties and Archaeological Resources ........................................................ 14 3.7 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................................. 15 3.8 Public Services and Recreation ...................................................................................... 15 3.9 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 16 3.10 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ................................................................................ 17 3.12 Visual Resources ........................................................................................................ 17 3.13 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 18 4 Best Management Practices, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 18 4.1 Geology, Geohazards, and Soils .................................................................................... 18 4.2 Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 19 4.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 19 4.5 Public Services and Recreation ...................................................................................... 20 Supplemental Environmental Assessment Federal Emergency Management Agency HMGP 4344-0302-33R Page i September 2020 4.6 Noise............................................................................................................................... 20 4.7 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ................................................................................... 20 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 20 6 References ............................................................................................................................. 21 List of Tables Table 1: Target Plant Species ......................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Evaluation Criteria for Potential Impacts ......................................................................... 8 Table 3: Project Area Soils ............................................................................................................. 9 List of Figures Figure 1: Project Area ..................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Treatment Areas .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3: Trail System .................................................................................................................... 5 List of Appendices Appendix A: ESA No Effect Determination Form Supplemental Environmental Assessment Federal Emergency Management Agency HMGP 4344-0302-33R Page ii September 2020 Acronyms APE Area of Potential Effect Cal OES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CO carbon monoxide CRHR California Register of Historical Resources EFH Essential Fish Habitat EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIGR THPO Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Tribal Historic Preservation Office FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOX nitrogen oxide NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory O3 ozone PM particulate matter PEA Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Recurring Actions in Arizona, California, and Nevada SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment SHPO State Historic Preservation Office Supplemental Environmental Assessment Federal Emergency Management Agency HMGP 4344-0302-33R Page iii September 2020 U.S.C. United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VOC volatile organic compound Supplemental Environmental Assessment Federal Emergency Management Agency HMGP 4344-0302-33R Page iv September 2020 1 Introduction The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to provide federal financial assistance to the County of Sonoma Regional Parks Department (County or Subrecipient), through the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES or Recipient), for a wildfire mitigation project. The project would be funded under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The County is proposing to implement erosion and sediment control measures, along with revegetation, on land in Hood Mountain Regional Park, which was affected by the 2017 Nuns Fire in Sonoma County (Proposed Action). Hood Mountain Regional Park is a public park managed by Sonoma County. The project area includes 22.5 acres of the park that straddles the watershed divide between Santa Rosa Creek and Sonoma Creek. The project latitude and longitude are 38.463303, −122.566505. 1.1 Scope of Document This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) evaluates the range of potential environmental impacts if the Proposed Action is implemented and evaluates the applicability of the December 2014 Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Recurring Actions in Arizona, California, and Nevada (PEA) and the March 2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment to the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Recurring Activities in Arizona, California, and Nevada. FEMA prepared this SEA because the type of action proposed under the Proposed Action does not fall under the range of actions evaluated in the PEA. However, FEMA determined that the activities conducted under the Proposed Action are similar to the activities evaluated in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area Directions to Units
    Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area Directions to Units It is highly recommended that you print out a map of the wildlife area prior to accessing. Huichica Creek (1,091 acres) From Hwy 12/121 turn south on Duhig Road and proceed approximately 2 miles then turn left on Las Amigas Road. Follow Las Amigas Road east until it connects with Buchli Station Road then turn right (south) on Buchli Station Road and follow the road through the vineyard areas until you cross the rail road tracks adjacent to CDFW parking lot. All visitors are encouraged to walk existing trails, levees and service roads south of the railroad tracks. Napa River (8,200 acres) The southern ponds (Ponds 1 and 1A) can be viewed from State Hwy. 37 which is located just north of San Pablo Bay. Where the Mare Island Bridge crosses the Napa River travel west 3.5 miles to a parking lot and locked gate on the north side of the highway with an opening provided for pedestrian access. The pedestrian access point in the gate allows foot traffic north to the large metal power transmission towers that bisect the pond. Within Ponds 1 and 1A, beyond the power towers to the north is a zone closed to hunting and fishing. The remaining portion of the Napa River Unit is to the north of these ponds, between South Slogh and Napa Slough (refer to area map), and is accessible only by boat. Ringstrom Bay (396 acres) The unit can be viewed from Ramal Road. From State Hwy. 12/121 take Ramal Road south.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning
    Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Community Meeting Presentation April, 2019 Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Scope Location: 9.5 miles of mainstem Sonoma Creek from Adobe Canyon to Madrone Road Goal: Create a Restoration Vision and design a demonstration project to • Improve Steelhead Habitat • Address Streamside Landowner Needs • Improve Hydrology and Water Quality • Address Bank Erosion Issues • Improve Riparian Vegetation Timeline: January 2019 – July 2020 Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Landowner Survey: https://sonomaecologycenter.org/creeksurvey/ • Mailed to 280 creekside property owners • 20% response rate Responses to: Which is your biggest concern for Sonoma Creek? (check all that apply) Flooding Bank Erosion Habitat for 1 Steelhead Summer Flows Mosquitos Debris or Litter 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Goal: Improve Steelhead Habitat • Improve Steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in Sonoma Creek • Improve high flow refuge for Steelhead Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Goal: Address Streamside Landowner Needs • Reduce risk of property damage from erosion or flooding along Sonoma Creek • Cultivate land owner stewardship of streamside properties Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Goal: Improve Hydrology and Water Quality • Restore natural hydrology in Sonoma Creek (Slow it, Spread it, Sink it) • Improve Sonoma Creek water quality (temp, contaminants, pathogens, fine sediment) Upper
    [Show full text]
  • Bothin Marsh 46
    EMERGENT ECOLOGIES OF THE BAY EDGE ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE CMG Summer Internship 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Research Introduction 2 Approach 2 What’s Out There Regional Map 6 Site Visits ` 9 Salt Marsh Section 11 Plant Community Profiles 13 What’s Changing AUTHORS Impacts of Sea Level Rise 24 Sarah Fitzgerald Marsh Migration Process 26 Jeff Milla Yutong Wu PROJECT TEAM What We Can Do Lauren Bergenholtz Ilia Savin Tactical Matrix 29 Julia Price Site Scale Analysis: Treasure Island 34 Nico Wright Site Scale Analysis: Bothin Marsh 46 This publication financed initiated, guided, and published under the direction of CMG Landscape Architecture. Conclusion Closing Statements 58 Unless specifically referenced all photographs and Acknowledgments 60 graphic work by authors. Bibliography 62 San Francisco, 2019. Cover photo: Pump station fronting Shorebird Marsh. Corte Madera, CA RESEARCH INTRODUCTION BREADTH As human-induced climate change accelerates and impacts regional map coastal ecologies, designers must anticipate fast-changing conditions, while design must adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. With this task in mind, this research project investigates the needs of existing plant communities in the San plant communities Francisco Bay, explores how ecological dynamics are changing, of the Bay Edge and ultimately proposes a toolkit of tactics that designers can use to inform site designs. DEPTH landscape tactics matrix two case studies: Treasure Island Bothin Marsh APPROACH Working across scales, we began our research with a broad suggesting design adaptations for Treasure Island and Bothin survey of the Bay’s ecological history and current habitat Marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy - Executive Summary May 2020 Contact: [email protected]
    Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy - Executive Summary May 2020 Contact: [email protected] Introduction Prior to the 1850s, the Sonoma Creek baylands were a vast mosaic of tidal and seasonal wetlands. Fresh water, sediment, and nutrients were delivered from the upper watershed to mix with the tidal waters of San Pablo Bay, creating a small estuary teeming with life. Floods along Sonoma Creek and Schell Creek spread out in an alluvial fan in the region south of present-day State Route (SR) 121, creating distributary channels and depositing sediment. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Sonoma Creek baylands, along with 80 percent of wetlands around San Francisco Bay, were diked and drained for agriculture and other purposes. This created discrete parcels and simplified creek networks. Flow of water and sediment across the alluvial fans was blocked and confined to the creek channels. As a result, portions of Schellville and surrounding areas in southern Sonoma County are frequently flooded during relatively small winter storm events, when flows overtop the banks of Sonoma and Schell creeks, resulting in road closures at the junction of SR 121 and SR 12 that affect travel and public safety. Much of what used to be tidal marsh has been transformed into other habitat types including diked agricultural fields. Narrow strips of tidal marsh have developed adjacent to the tidal slough channels that run between the diked agricultural baylands. Development within the Sonoma Creek baylands continues despite the chronic flooding that is caused by filling and fragmentation of the floodplain. Flooding, and loss of habitat, species, and ecological function will increase with climate change-driven sea level rise and increased storm intensity.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Distribution of Beavers in California: Implications for Salmonids
    Current Distribution of Beavers in California: Implications for Salmonids Eli Asarian Riverbend Sciences Presented at: Salmon Restoration Federation Conference Riverbend Sciences 3/19/2014 Presentation Outline • Beaver Mapper • Current beaver distribution – Interactions with salmonids – Recent expansion Eli Asarian Cheryl Reynolds / Worth A Dam What is the Beaver Mapper? • Web-based map system for entering, displaying, and sharing information on beaver distribution Live Demo http://www.riverbendsci.com/projects/beavers How Can You Help? • Contribute data – Via website – Contact me: • [email protected] • 707.832.4206 • Bulk update for large datasets • Funding – New data – System improvements Current and Historic Beaver Distribution in California Beaver Range Current range Historic range Outside confirmed historic range Drainage divide of Sacramento/San Joaquin and South Coast Rivers Lakes Lanman et al. 2013 County Boundaries Current Beaver Distribution in CA Smith River Beaver Range Current range Historic range Outside confirmed historic range Drainage divide of Sacramento/San Joaquin and South Coast Rivers Lakes County Boundaries Beaver Bank Lodge Smith River Marisa Parish, (Humboldt State Univ. MS thesis) Lower Klamath River Middle Beaver Range Klamath Current range River Historic range Outside confirmed historic range Drainage divide of Sacramento/San Joaquin and South Coast Rivers Lakes County Boundaries Beaver Pond on W.F. McGarvey Creek (Trib to Lower Klamath River) from: Sarah Beesley & Scott Silloway, (Yurok Tribe Fisheries
    [Show full text]
  • San Pablo Bay and Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuges - Refuges in the North Bay by Bryan Winton
    San Pablo Bay NWR Tideline Newsletter Archives San Pablo Bay and Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuges - Refuges in the North Bay by Bryan Winton Editor’s Note: In March 2003, the National Wildlife Refuge System will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. This system is the world’s most unique network of lands and waters set aside specifically for the conservation of fish, wildlife and plants. President Theodore Roosevelt established the first refuge, 3- acre Pelican Island Bird Reservation in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon, in 1903. Roosevelt went on to create 55 more refuges before he left office in 1909; today the refuge system encompasses more than 535 units spread over 94 million acres. Leading up to 2003, the Tideline will feature each national wildlife refuge in the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. This complex is made up of seven Refuges (soon to be eight) located throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and headquartered at Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Fremont. We hope these articles will enhance your appreciation of the uniqueness of each refuge and the diversity of habitats and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay Area. San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge Tucked away in the northern reaches of the San Francisco Bay estuary lies a body of water and land unique to the San Francisco Bay Area. Every winter, thousands of canvasbacks - one of North America’s largest and fastest flying ducks, will descend into San Pablo Bay and the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge not only boasts the largest wintering population of canvasbacks on the west coast, it protects the largest remaining contiguous patch of pickleweed-dominated tidal marsh found in the northern San Francisco Bay - habitat critical to Aerial view of San Pablo Bay NWR the survival of the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Coast Miwok and Their Neighbors, 1783-1840
    ETHNOHISTORY AND ETHNOGEOGRAPHY OF THE COAST MIWOK AND THEIR NEIGHBORS, 1783-1840 by Randall Milliken Technical Paper presented to: National Park Service, Golden Gate NRA Cultural Resources and Museum Management Division Building 101, Fort Mason San Francisco, California Prepared by: Archaeological/Historical Consultants 609 Aileen Street Oakland, California 94609 June 2009 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents the locations of Spanish-contact period Coast Miwok regional and local communities in lands of present Marin and Sonoma counties, California. Furthermore, it documents previously unavailable information about those Coast Miwok communities as they struggled to survive and reform themselves within the context of the Franciscan missions between 1783 and 1840. Supplementary information is provided about neighboring Southern Pomo-speaking communities to the north during the same time period. The staff of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) commissioned this study of the early native people of the Marin Peninsula upon recommendation from the report’s author. He had found that he was amassing a large amount of new information about the early Coast Miwoks at Mission Dolores in San Francisco while he was conducting a GGNRA-funded study of the Ramaytush Ohlone-speaking peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula. The original scope of work for this study called for the analysis and synthesis of sources identifying the Coast Miwok tribal communities that inhabited GGNRA parklands in Marin County prior to Spanish colonization. In addition, it asked for the documentation of cultural ties between those earlier native people and the members of the present-day community of Coast Miwok. The geographic area studied here reaches far to the north of GGNRA lands on the Marin Peninsula to encompass all lands inhabited by Coast Miwoks, as well as lands inhabited by Pomos who intermarried with them at Mission San Rafael.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Sonoma Creek Flood Management & Ecosystem Enhancement
    LOWER SONOMA CREEK FLOOD MANAGEMENT & ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Portions of Schellville and surrounding areas, in southern Sonoma County, California, are frequently flooded during relatively small winter storm events that cause flows to overtop the banks of Sonoma and Schell Creeks. Recurrent flooding has caused economic loss and considerable damage to private property and roadways. The Sonoma Resource Conservation District (District) undertook the management of the Lower Sonoma Creek Flood Management and Ecosystem Enhancement project to identify and evaluate opportunities to address flooding issues and ecosystem enhancement. The study focuses on the southern portion of the Sonoma Creek watershed, within the reaches of Sonoma Creek and Schell Creek from immediately upstream of Highway 121 to San Pablo Bay. The study was funded by the US Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Conservancy and the Sonoma County Water Agency. Consultants, ESA PWA, performed the basin hydrologic investigation, developed the hydrodynamic model, and performed the technical analyses and evaluation of project elements/alternatives, in addition to participating in public outreach with stakeholders. Watershed Sciences performed a geomorphological analysis and assessment of existing drainage system as baseline information. Public involvement and outreach to stakeholders was an integral component of the technical studies. FEASIBILITY STUDY PURPOSE & GOALS The goal of the study was to identify a project or projects to alleviate flooding and reduce flood-related damage to public facilities, structures, roads, railroad tracks, pasture lands and crops while restoring and enhancing habitat and improving ecological and hydrological functions. The primary focus of the study was to develop a project concept to accomplish flood management and habitat restoration in the Schellville area.
    [Show full text]
  • Abundance and Distribution of Shorebirds in the San Francisco Bay Area
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 33, Number 2, 2002 ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHOREBIRDS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA LYNNE E. STENZEL, CATHERINE M. HICKEY, JANET E. KJELMYR, and GARY W. PAGE, Point ReyesBird Observatory,4990 ShorelineHighway, Stinson Beach, California 94970 ABSTRACT: On 13 comprehensivecensuses of the San Francisco-SanPablo Bay estuaryand associatedwetlands we counted325,000-396,000 shorebirds (Charadrii)from mid-Augustto mid-September(fall) and in November(early winter), 225,000 from late Januaryto February(late winter); and 589,000-932,000 in late April (spring).Twenty-three of the 38 speciesoccurred on all fall, earlywinter, and springcounts. Median counts in one or moreseasons exceeded 10,000 for 10 of the 23 species,were 1,000-10,000 for 4 of the species,and were less than 1,000 for 9 of the species.On risingtides, while tidal fiats were exposed,those fiats held the majorityof individualsof 12 speciesgroups (encompassing 19 species);salt ponds usuallyheld the majorityof 5 speciesgroups (encompassing 7 species); 1 specieswas primarilyon tidal fiatsand in other wetlandtypes. Most speciesgroups tended to concentratein greaterproportion, relative to the extent of tidal fiat, either in the geographiccenter of the estuaryor in the southernregions of the bay. Shorebirds' densitiesvaried among 14 divisionsof the unvegetatedtidal fiats. Most species groups occurredconsistently in higherdensities in someareas than in others;however, most tidalfiats held relativelyhigh densitiesfor at leastone speciesgroup in at leastone season.Areas supportingthe highesttotal shorebirddensities were also the ones supportinghighest total shorebird biomass, another measure of overallshorebird use. Tidalfiats distinguished most frequenfiy by highdensities or biomasswere on the east sideof centralSan FranciscoBay andadjacent to the activesalt ponds on the eastand southshores of southSan FranciscoBay and alongthe Napa River,which flowsinto San Pablo Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Clyde Wahrhaftig Collection
    Clyde Wahrhaftig Collection GOGA 35329 Golden Gate National Recreation Area Park Archives and Records Center ATTN: Park Archives and Records Center Presidio of San Francisco Building 201, Fort Mason Building 667 McDowell Ave. San Francisco, CA 94123 San Francisco, CA 94129 [Mailing Address] [Physical Address] go.nps.gov/gogacollections Phone: 415-561-2807 Fax: 415-441-1618 Introduction Golden Gate National Recreation Area Park Description Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), a unit of the National Park Service, was established by an Act of Congress on October 27, 1972. The 80,000-acre park encompasses a great diversity of cultural and natural resources in and around the Bay Area of San Francisco, California. It includes Muir Woods National Monument and Fort Point National Historic Site. The park holds almost five million three-dimensional and documentary artifacts dating from the time before European contact to the present. They are preserved and maintained for the public by the Division of Cultural Resources and Museum Management, which includes the Park Archives and Records Center (PARC). Park Archives and Records Center (PARC) Historical Note GGNRA and the sites within it have been collecting records since their inception. The PARC was established in 1994 to receive records and archival collections from the U.S. Army and the Presidio Army Museum after the closure of the Presidio of San Francisco as an Army base. The collections continue to grow through the donation of materials by private individuals, transfer of inactive park records by staff, and acquisition of relevant documentary materials. Scope of Collections The archival collections in the custody of the GGNRA document the history and activity of the various sites and groups associated with the park, described in the park’s Scope of Collection Statement (2009).
    [Show full text]