DOCSLIB.ORG

Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Lodi Gas Storage, L.L.C. Kirby Hills Natural Gas Storage Facility, Solano County (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers File Number 2007-400516N) Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District; San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board; and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Project Applicant and Responsible Party: Lodi Gas Storage, L.L.C. P.O. Box 230 23265 N. State Route 99 Acampo, CA 95220 Contact: Scott Wilson Telephone: (209) 368-9277 ext. 11 Facsimile: (209)368-9276 Email: [email protected] With Technical Assistance from: ICF Jones & Stokes 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Sue Bushnell 916/752-0959 May 2008 ICF Jones & Stokes. 2008. Wetland habitat mitigation and monitoring plan. May. (ICF J&S 05746.05.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District; San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board; and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Contents Chapter 1 Project Description and Proposed Mitigation .................................... 1-1 Responsible Party................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose of This Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ......................... 1-1 Project Location ................................................................................ 1-2 Project Summary .............................................................................. 1-2 Summary of Effects on Waters of the United States ........................ 1-4 Mitigation Site ................................................................................... 1-4 Mitigation Design .................................................................................... 1-9 Basis of Design ................................................................................. 1-9 Characteristics of Design Reference Site ....................................... 1-10 Created and Restored Habitats ............................................................ 1-10 Compensation Ratios ..................................................................... 1-10 Long-Term Goals ............................................................................ 1-11 Aquatic Functions ........................................................................... 1-11 Hydrology ........................................................................................ 1-11 Topography ..................................................................................... 1-12 Soils and Substrate ......................................................................... 1-12 Vegetation ....................................................................................... 1-12 Chapter 2 Success Criteria and Monitoring ......................................................... 2-1 Success Criteria...................................................................................... 2-1 Hydrology .......................................................................................... 2-2 Vegetation Cover .............................................................................. 2-2 Monitoring ............................................................................................... 2-3 Methods ............................................................................................ 2-3 Monitoring Schedule ......................................................................... 2-4 Photo-Documentation ....................................................................... 2-4 Annual Reports ................................................................................. 2-4 Chapter 3 Implementation Plan ............................................................................. 3-1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................... 3-1 Preconstruction Phase ...................................................................... 3-2 Grading Implementation ................................................................... 3-2 Avoidance Measures ........................................................................ 3-3 Soil Treatment .................................................................................. 3-3 Pest Plant Removal .......................................................................... 3-3 Construction Monitoring .................................................................... 3-4 Planting and Seeding.............................................................................. 3-5 Planting Plan ..................................................................................... 3-5 Planting Methods .............................................................................. 3-5 Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan May 2008 Kirby Hills Natural Gas Storage Facility, Phase II i 05725.05 Lodi Gas Storage LLC Table of Contents Nature and Source of Propagules .................................................... 3-6 Irrigation ............................................................................................ 3-7 Implementation Schedule ....................................................................... 3-7 As-Built Drawings ............................................................................. 3-8 Chapter 4 Maintenance during the Monitoring Period ........................................ 4-1 Maintenance Activities ............................................................................ 4-1 Expected Maintenance Activities ...................................................... 4-1 Irrigation ............................................................................................ 4-2 Weed Management .......................................................................... 4-2 Replacement Planting ....................................................................... 4-3 General Site Maintenance and Repairs ............................................ 4-3 Maintenance Inspections ........................................................................ 4-4 Proposed Monitoring Reports ................................................................. 4-4 As-Maintained Drawings ................................................................... 4-4 Annual Reports ................................................................................. 4-4 Potential Contingency Measures ............................................................ 4-4 Chapter 5 Completion of Mitigation ...................................................................... 5-1 Notification of Completion ....................................................................... 5-1 Confirmation of Completion .................................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 Contingency Measures ........................................................................ 6-1 Initiating Procedures ............................................................................... 6-1 Alternative Locations for Contingency Mitigation .................................... 6-1 Funding Mechanism for Contingency Mitigation ..................................... 6-1 Chapter 7 Long-Term Management ...................................................................... 7-1 Property Ownership ................................................................................ 7-1 Management Plan................................................................................... 7-1 Management Approach .................................................................... 7-1 Site Protection ........................................................................................ 7-2 Chapter 8 References Cited .................................................................................. 8-1 Phase II of the Kirby Hills Natural Gas Storage Project May 2007 Proponent’s Environmental Assessment ii Lodi Gas Storage LLC Table of Contents Tables On Page 1 Waters of the United States Delineated in the Wetland Delineation Study Area ....................................................................................... 1-6 Figures Follows Page 1 Project Vicinity ..................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Kirby Hills I and Kirby Hills Phase II Project Area Boundaries ........................... 1-2 3 Project Site Plan for Phase II Project Components ............................................ 1-3 4 Proposed Wetland Restoration Site and Permanent and Temporary Fill Areas ........................................................................................... 1-3 5 Project Site Profile for Temporary and Permanent Work Over Area for Well W5 ................................................................................................. 1-3 6 Proposed Wetland Reference Sites .................................................................... 1-7 7 Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, Cross Section ........................................ 1-13 Phase II of the Kirby Hills Natural Gas Storage Project May 2007 Proponent’s Environmental Assessment iii Chapter 1 Project Description and Proposed Mitigation Responsible Party The project applicant with financial responsibility for attaining the success criteria described in this Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) is: Lodi Gas Storage, L.L.C. P.O. Box 230 23265 N. State Route 99 Acampo, CA 95220 Contact: Scott Wilson Telephone: (209) 368-9277 ext.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites
    Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes 1 S1 2 S4 3 S7 4 S9 5 S11 Port of Sacramento S12 (Department of 6 1,710,000 3, 5 South Island Prospect Island Interior Bureau of Land Management?) 7 S13 S14 8 USACE N/A 3 Grand Island Placement Site S16 9 USACE 3,000,000 3 Rio Vista Placement Site DWR, Mega S19 10 Sands, Port of 20,000,000 3 Decker Island Placement Site Sacramento S20 Port of Sacramento 11 1,000,000 3, 5 Augusta Pit Placement Site (DWR?) S31 12 Port of Sacramento Placement Port of Sacramento Site Reclamation S32 13 Districts 999 and (six segments) 900 S35 DOW Chemical 14 Montezuma Hills Placement 890,000 3 Company Site 15 SX Sacramento Muni 1 Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes Utility District Sherman Lake (Sherman 16 USACE 3,000,000 3 Island?) 17 Montezuma Wetlands Project Montezuma LLC Montezuma Wetlands 18 Montezuma LLC Rehandling Site Expanded Scour Pond Dredge material 19 Placement Site (also called Yes DWR according to WDR #R5- 250,000 1, 2, 3,4 Sherman Island?) 2004-0061 Port of Stockton McCormack Pit Placement maintenance material 20 Site (also called Sherman Yes DWR only 250,000 3,4 Island?) WDR R5-2003-0145 Proposed Iron House Levy repair and 21 Jersey Island Placement Site Restoration 3 Sanitation District maintenance
    [Show full text]
  • Solano 4 Wind Project EIR 8 References Executive
    Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 8 References Executive Summary No references are cited in this chapter. Chapter 1, “Introduction” No references are cited in this chapter. Chapter 2, “Project Description” California Energy Commission. 2018 (August). Operational Wind Projects, Solano Wind Resource Area, 2018. Map scale 1:24,000. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/wind/WindResourceArea_Solano.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2019. CEC. See California Energy Commission. Solano County. 1987 (May). Solano County Wind Turbine Siting Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Department of Environmental Management, Fairfield, CA. U.S. Geological Survey. 2019 (January). U.S. Wind Turbine Database. Available: https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#14.02/38.16164/-121.79729. Accessed February 9, 2019. USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey. Chapter 3, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures” Section 3.1, “Aesthetics” Black & Veatch. 2019 (January 3). Solano Wind Energy Project, Wind Project Shadow Flicker Assessment. California Department of Transportation 2019. Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed March 18, 2019. Federal Aviation Administration. 2018 (August 17). Obstruction Marking and Lighting, including Changes 1 and 2. Advisory Circular 70/7460-1L. Chapter 13, “Marking and Lighting Wind Turbines.” Federal Highway Administration. 2015 (January). Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. FHWA-HEP-15-029. Washington, DC. Page 8-1 Solano 4 Wind Project EIR July 2019 National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. See National Research Council. Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2007 (September). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the SMUD Solano Wind Project Phase 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shiloh Iii Wind Plant Project Habitat Conservation Plan
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SHILOH III WIND PLANT PROJECT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN P REPARED BY: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W-2650 Sacramento, CA 95825 Contact: Mike Thomas, Chief Habitat Conservation Planning Branch W ITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Brad Schafer 916.737.3000 February 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shiloh III Wind Plant Project Habitat Conservation Plan. February. (ICF 00263.09). Sacramento, CA. With technical assistance from ICF International, Sacramento, CA. Contents Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Species Covered by the HCP ...................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Proposed Action Addressed in this EA ....................................................................................... 1‐2 1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 1‐2 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................. 2‐1 2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Inventory Report and Addendum
    APPENDIX E1 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT This page intentionally left blank CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED MONTEZUMA II WIND PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P REPARED FOR: NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC 700 Universe Boulevard, MS FEW/JB Juno Beach, FL 33408 Contact: Cliff Graham 561.304.5372 P REPARED BY: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Andrea Nardin 916.737.3000 August 2010 ICF International. 2010. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Montezuma II Wind Project, Solano County, California. August. (ICF 00336.10). Sacramento, CA. Prepared for NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC, Juno Beach, FL. Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 Area of Impact ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................................................. 3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................ 4 Cultural Setting ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Suisun City General Plan
    B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES B ACKGROUND R EPORT Biological Resources In This Background Report Page Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 3 Habitat Types ......................................................................................................................... 3 Sensitive Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 9 Sensitive Habitats ................................................................................................................. 10 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................... 40 Federal Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws ...................................................................... 41 State Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws ......................................................................... 43 Regional and Local Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Ordinances .......................................... 44 General Plan Issues and Opportunities ..................................................................................... 46 References ............................................................................................................................... 47 P AGE BIO‐ 1 C ITY OF
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Montezuma Wind Plant Project (U-06-06) January 2010
    Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Montezuma Wind Plant Project (U-06-06) January 2010 Department of Resource Management 675 Texas Street, Suite 5500 Fairfield, CA 94533 Planning Services Division Michael Yankovich Phone: (707) 784-6765 / Fax: (707) 784-4805 Planning Program Manager January 14, 2010 Dear Interested Agency: Subject: Notice of Montezuma Wind Project Final Environmental Impact Report Amendment The County of Solano Department of Resource Management published the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Montezuma Wind Project in February of 2007. An amendment to the FEIR has been prepared, dated January 2010, and is attached. The amendment describes and analyzes the potential impacts resulting from minor changes to the project description, environment and setting, and/or new information being received, generally described as follows: Modifications to wind turbine layout option #1 (Siemens). Elimination of PG&E reconductoring project from EIR (project near completion). Slight increased size (0.07 acre) of one of two substation options, and increased main transformer size from 40 MVA to 60 MVA. Increased project area from 1,458 to 1,466 acres. New and/or updated reports: blade throw, shadow flicker, low frequency/infrasound noise, and avian mortality. Update and resolution of Travis AFB radar issue related to the Project. Update to Air Quality section of EIR regarding greenhouse gases and global warming. Update to Biological Resources section of EIR regarding California Tiger Salamander and regulations for Bald and Golden Eagles. Other updates regarding County adoption of 2008 General Plan, plans underway for County adoption of updated development standards for wind turbine generators, and recently completed and planned wind energy projects in the vicinity of Montezuma Wind.
    [Show full text]
  • Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project, Phase 1
    SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY Staff Recommendation April 11, 2018 MONTEZUMA WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, PHASE 1 Project No. RA-001 Project Manager: Laura Cholodenko RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $1,610,000 to Montezuma Wetlands LLC to complete the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project, Phase 1, which includes tidal and seasonal wetland restoration on 630 acres of diked baylands and enhancement of adjacent uplands in Suisun Marsh, Solano County. LOCATION: Montezuma Slough, Solano County; Measure AA Region: North Bay MEASURE AA PROGRAM CATEGORY: Safe, Clean Water and Pollution Prevention Program; Vital Fish, Bird and Wildlife Habitat Program. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location Exhibit 2: Project Design Exhibit 3: CEQA Documentation Exhibit 4: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority adopt the following resolution pursuant to The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act, Gov. Code § 66700- 66706: “The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority hereby authorizes the disbursement of an amount not to exceed one million six hundred ten thousand dollars ($1,610,000) to Montezuma Wetlands LLC for implementation of the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project, Phase 1, which includes tidal and seasonal wetland restoration on 630 acres of diked baylands and enhancement of adjacent uplands in Suisun Marsh, Solano County. Prior to commencement of the project, the grantee shall submit for the review and written approval of the Executive Officer of the Authority the following: a. A detailed work program, schedule, and budget. Page 1 of 10 MONTEZUMA WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, PHASE 1 b. Names and qualifications of any contractors to be employed in carrying out the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Maps of the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta, California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-1401 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAPS OF THE SACRAMENTO - SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA By Brian F. Atwater INTRODUCTION The Sac ramen to - San Joaquin Delta, the arm of Helley, and W. R. Lettis improved the manuscript with the San Francisco Bay estuary that reaches into the critical reviews, and Faith Dunham, J. R. Le Compte, Central 'valley of California, differs from typical J. B. Pinkerton, N. J. Tamamian, J. A. Thomas, and coastal-plain deltas in three important respects. Natalie Weiskal helped prepare the maps and text for First, rather than meeting the ocean individually and publication. directly, all major waterways of this delta discharge via a single constricted outlet into a chain of estuarine bays and straits. Second, in the most SKETCH OF DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY common vertical sequence of deposits, peat and mud deposited in tidal marshes and swamps (tidal wetlands) The Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta overlies 5-10 directly overlie alluvium or eolian sand, a sequence km of sedimentary deposits. Most of this material, recording a landward spread of tidal environment~ including sources and reservoirs of the Delta's rather than the seaward migration of fluvial natural gas, accumulated in marine environments about environments that is typical of coastal-plain deltas 175 million to 25 million years ago (Burroughs, (Cosby, 1941, p. 43; Thompson, 1957, p. 12; Shlemon 1967). Younger deposits are generally described as and Begg, 1975, p. 259; Atwater and Belknap, 1980). nonmarine (Burroughs, 1967), but some must have formed Finally, intensive human use has led to a peculiar set in shallow seas and estuaries (see maps by C.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
    The Wildlife Society Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Review 07–2 September 2007 LThe Wildlife Society, Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Review 07-2 September 2007 The Wildlife Society Technical Review Committee on Wind Energy Facilities and Wildlife Edward B. Arnett, Ph.D. (Chair) Albert M. Manville, Ph.D. Bat Conservation International U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P. O. Box 162603 Division of Migratory Bird Management Austin, TX 78716-2603 4401 N. Fairfax Drive – MBSP-4107 Arlington, VA 22203 Douglas B. Inkley, Ph.D. National Wildlife Federation Russ Mason, Ph.D. 11100 Wildlife Center Drive Nevada Department of Wildlife Reston, VA 20190-5362 1100 Valley Rd. Reno, NV 89512 Douglas H. Johnson, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Michael Morrison, Ph.D. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Department of Wildlife and Fisheries University of Minnesota Sciences 1980 Folwell Ave. Texas A&M University St. Paul, MN 55108 College Station, TX 77843-2258 Ronald P. Larkin, Ph.D. M. Dale Strickland, Ph.D. Illinois Natural History Survey Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. 607 E. Peabody Drive 2003 Central Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Stephanie Manes Robert Thresher, Ph.D. North American Grouse Partnership National Renewable Energy Laboratory 222 S. Houston #A 1617 Cole Blvd. Tulsa, OK 74127 Golden, CO 80401 The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 COVER: Wind turbines at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lowville, New York (center): Ed Arnett, Bat Conservation International; Silver-haired bat (left): Merlin D. Tuttle, Bat Conservation International; Bluetit in spring (upper right); Greater prairie chicken (lower right): U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Richness and Endemism in the Native Flora of California
    RESEARCH ARTICLE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY Species richness and endemism in the native f ora of California 1 Bruce G. Baldwin 2 , Andrew H. Thornhill , William A. Freyman , David D. Ackerly , Matthew M. Kling , Naia Morueta-Holme , and Brent D. Mishler PREMISE OF THE STUDY: California’s vascular f ora is the most diverse and threatened in temperate North America. Previous studies of spatial patterns of Californian plant diversity have been limited by traditional metrics, non-uniform geographic units, and distributional data derived from f oristic descrip- tions for only a subset of species. METHODS: We revisited patterns of sampling intensity, species richness, and relative endemism in California based on equal-area spatial units, the full vascular f ora, and specimen-based distributional data. We estimated richness, weighted endemism (inverse range-weighting of species), and corrected weighted endemism (weighted endemism corrected for richness), and performed a randomization test for signif cantly high endemism. KEY RESULTS: Possible biases in herbarium data do not obscure patterns of high richness and endemism at the spatial resolution studied. High species richness was sometimes associated with signif cantly high endemism (e.g., Klamath Ranges) but often not. In Stebbins and Major’s (1965) main endemism hotspot, Southwestern California, species richness is high across much of the Peninsular and Transverse ranges but signif cantly high endemism is mostly localized to the Santa Rosa and San Bernardino mountains. In contrast, species richness is low in the Channel Islands, where endemism is signif cantly high, as also found for much of the Death Valley region. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of taxonomic richness, even with greater weighting of range-restricted taxa, are insuf cient for identifying areas of signif cantly high endemism that warrant conservation attention.
    [Show full text]
  • O-Hydrology and Water Quality
    13 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank 13 Hydrology and Water Quality 13 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This chapter describes the hydrology and water quality setting, summarizes the applicable regulations, evaluates the potential impacts to these resources from the construction and operation of the proposed Montezuma II Wind Energy Project, and identifies mitigation measures to address the impacts found to be potentially significant. 13.1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY SETTING The Montezuma II Wind Energy Project covers approximately 2,539 acres in the Montezuma Hills in southwestern Solano County. The Montezuma Hills is an elevated generally treeless area within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River floodplain that consists of rolling hills and experiences dry summers and rainy winters. Rainfall in the area averages 16 to 20 inches per year and less than 0.3 inches of rain in July and August. The area contains intermittent streams and wetlands, but no navigable waters. The Sacramento River borders the Montezuma Hills to the south and east, and the Suisun Marsh borders the area to the west. The southwestern portion of the project area is adjacent to the Suisun Marsh Secondary Management Area and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Secondary Zone. The project area is located in two different water regions. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) has jurisdiction over the western portions of the Project and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) has jurisdiction over the eastern portions. 13.1.1 Drainages The project area is located within the Suisun Bay watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 18050001), which is characterized by generally treeless rolling hills with higher elevations ranging between 100 and 272 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and near the Sacramento and San Joaquin river delta to the east.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Change in Suisun Marsh AMBER DAWN MANFREE
    Landscape Change in Suisun Marsh By AMBER DAWN MANFREE B.A. (Sonoma State University) 1995 M.A. (University of California, Davis) 2012 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Geography in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: _____________________________________ Peter B. Moyle, Chair _____________________________________ Deborah L. Elliott-Fisk _____________________________________ Jay R. Lund Committee in Charge 2014 i UMI Number: 3646341 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3646341 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 Amber Dawn Manfree September 2014 Geography Landscape Change in Suisun Marsh Abstract Suisun Marsh is a 470 km2 wetland situated between the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Pablo Bay in the San Francisco Estuary. Today, about 80 percent of the marsh plain is privately owned by duck hunting clubs and managed in accordance with conservation agreements. A complex network of sloughs weaves through the Marsh, providing habitat for numerous aquatic species. Together the waterways and marsh plain support a stunning array of species, provide exurban open space, and are increasingly called upon to meet regional conservation objectives.
    [Show full text]