DOCSLIB.ORG

Attachment Iii: Baseline Status and Cumulative Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Attachment Iii: Baseline Status and Cumulative Effects ATTACHMENT III: BASELINE STATUS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY LISTED SPECIES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: ALAMEDAWHIPSNAKE............................................................................................ 5 1.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................................... 5 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE........................................................................... 5 1.2.1 Factors affecting species within the action area ............................................... 5 1.2.1.1 Urban development.................................................................................... 6 1.2.1.2 Fire suppression ......................................................................................... 8 1.2.1.3 Predation .................................................................................................... 8 1.2.1.4 Grazing practices ....................................................................................... 9 1.2.1.5 Non-native species..................................................................................... 9 1.2.2 Baseline Status................................................................................................ 10 1.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 12 2: BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY ....................................................................... 14 2.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................... 14 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE......................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Factors affecting species environment within the action area ........................ 14 2.2.1.1 Habitat loss and degradation.................................................................... 15 2.2.1.2 Invasive plants and air pollution.............................................................. 17 2.2.1.3 Overutilization for research and private purposes ................................... 17 2.2.1.4 Gopher control and vehicular disturbance ............................................... 18 2.2.1.5 Fire and grazing practices ........................................................................ 18 2.2.1.6 Climate change and climate extremes...................................................... 19 2.2.2 Baseline Status................................................................................................ 19 2.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 22 3: CALIFORNIA CLAPPER RAIL ................................................................................ 25 3.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................... 25 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE......................................................................... 25 3.2.1 Factors affecting species within the action area ............................................. 25 3.2.1.1 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation .............................................................. 26 3.2.1.2 Hunting .................................................................................................... 27 3.2.1.3 Predation .................................................................................................. 27 3.2.1.4 Disease ..................................................................................................... 28 3.2.1.5 Climate Extremes..................................................................................... 28 3.2.1.6 Habitat Protection and Restoration .......................................................... 29 3.2.2 Baseline Status................................................................................................ 29 3.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 30 4: CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP.................................................................. 34 4.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................... 34 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE......................................................................... 34 4.2.1 Factors affecting species environment within the action area ........................ 35 4.2.1.1 Urbanization.............................................................................................. 35 4.2.1.2 Stream Maintenance.................................................................................. 36 4.2.1.3 Water Resource Needs: Impoundments and Water Diversions................ 36 4.2.1.4 Gravel Mining........................................................................................... 37 4.2.1.5 Agriculture Developments........................................................................ 37 2 4.2.1.6 Predation ................................................................................................... 38 4.2.1.7 Environmental Extremes........................................................................... 39 4.2.1.8 Restoration Efforts.................................................................................... 40 4.2.2 Baseline Status.............................................................................................. 40 4.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 41 5: CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER: CENTRAL CALIFORNIA DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT ............................................................................................. 42 5.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................... 42 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE......................................................................... 42 5.2.1 Factors affecting species continued existence within the action area............. 43 5.2.1.1 Rangeland Conversion and Habitat Fragmentation ................................. 43 5.2.1.2 Disease ..................................................................................................... 45 5.2.1.3 Predation, Competition, and Hybridization ............................................. 45 5.2.1.4 Other Factors affecting the species continued existence ......................... 47 5.2.2 Baseline Status................................................................................................. 49 5.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 50 6: CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER: SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT ............................................................................................. 51 6.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................... 51 6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE......................................................................... 51 6.2.1 Factors affecting species continued existence within the action area............. 52 6.2.1.1 Conversion of rangeland for urban and agricultural uses ........................ 52 6.2.1.2 Contaminants ........................................................................................... 54 6.2.1.3 Pest control............................................................................................... 55 6.2.1.4 Grazing and Water drawdown ................................................................. 56 6.2.1.5 Predation, Competition, and Hybridization ............................................. 56 6.2.1.6 Disease ..................................................................................................... 58 6.2.2 Baseline Status................................................................................................ 59 6.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 61 7: CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER: SONOMA COUNTY DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT ............................................................................................. 63 7.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................... 63 7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE......................................................................... 63 7.2.1 Factors affecting species continued existence within the action area............. 63 7.2.1.1 Habitat Destruction, Degradation, and Fragmentation ............................. 64 7.2.1.2 Disease ...................................................................................................... 65 7.2.1.3 Predation, Competition, and Hybridization ............................................. 66 7.2.1.4 Other Factors affecting the species continued existence ......................... 68 7.2.2 Baseline Status................................................................................................. 70 7.3 References.............................................................................................................. 73 8: DELTA SMELT .......................................................................................................... 75 8.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................... 75 8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE......................................................................... 75 8.2.1 Factors affecting species environment within the action area .......................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge 2020
    Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020 -2021 Waterfowl Hunting Regulations These Regulations along with maps and directions are available at: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Don_Edwards_San_Francisco_Bay/hunting.html General Information The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) contains approximately 10,580 acres of tidal areas and salt ponds that are open to waterfowl hunting (Map 1). Season opening and closing dates are determined by the State of California. Check the California Waterfowl Regulations (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting) each season for these dates. Hunters must comply with all State and Federal regulations including regulations listed under 50 CFR 32.24, and the refuge-specific regulations described below. Permit Requirements Hunters 18 years of age or older will need to have: 1) a valid California hunting license; 2) a valid, signed Federal Duck Stamp; 3) a California Duck Validation; 4) a Harvest Information Program (HIP) Validation; and 5) identification that includes a photograph (e.g., driver’s license). Junior and Youth hunters need the following: Junior/Youth Hunter Summary 15 yrs old or 16-17 yrs old w/ Jr 18 yrs old w/ Jr under (Youth) license (Junior) license (Junior) Participate in post-season youth hunt? Yes Yes No Needs a California hunting license? Yes Yes Yes Needs a HIP Validation? Yes Yes Yes Needs a Federal Duck Stamp? No Yes Yes Needs a State Duck Stamp (validation)? No No No Needs an adult accompanying them on regular hunt days? Yes No No Needs an adult accompanying them for youth hunt days? Yes Yes Yes It is required that all hunters possess a Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Permit when hunting in the Alviso Ponds.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Reproductive Biology of Cerambycids
    4 Reproductive Biology of Cerambycids Lawrence M. Hanks University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois Qiao Wang Massey University Palmerston North, New Zealand CONTENTS 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 133 4.2 Phenology of Adults ..................................................................................................................... 134 4.3 Diet of Adults ............................................................................................................................... 138 4.4 Location of Host Plants and Mates .............................................................................................. 138 4.5 Recognition of Mates ................................................................................................................... 140 4.6 Copulation .................................................................................................................................... 141 4.7 Larval Host Plants, Oviposition Behavior, and Larval Development .......................................... 142 4.8 Mating Strategy ............................................................................................................................ 144 4.9 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 148 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf
    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
    [Show full text]
  • Qty Size Name Price 10 1G Abies Bracteata 12.00 $ 15 1G Abutilon
    REGIONAL PARKS BOTANIC GARDEN, TILDEN REGIONAL PARK, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA Celebrating 78 years of growing California native plants: 1940-2018 **PRELIMINARY**PLANT SALE LIST **PRELIMINARY** Preliminary Plant Sale List 9/29/2018 visit: www.nativeplants.org for the most up to date plant list, updates are posted until 10/5 FALL PLANT SALE OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANTS SATURDAY, October 6, 2018 PUBLIC SALE: 10:00 AM TO 3:00 PM MEMBERS ONLY SALE: 9:00 AM TO 10:00 AM MEMBERSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRY TO THE SALE AT 8:30 AM Qty Size Name Price 10 1G Abies bracteata $ 12.00 15 1G Abutilon palmeri $ 11.00 1 1G Acer circinatum $ 10.00 3 5G Acer circinatum $ 40.00 8 1G Acer macrophyllum $ 9.00 10 1G Achillea millefolium 'Calistoga' $ 8.00 25 4" Achillea millefolium 'Island Pink' OUR INTRODUCTION! $ 5.00 28 1G Achillea millefolium 'Island Pink' OUR INTRODUCTION! $ 8.00 6 1G Actea rubra f. neglecta (white fruits) $ 9.00 3 1G Adenostoma fasciculatum $ 10.00 1 4" Adiantum aleuticum $ 10.00 6 1G Adiantum aleuticum $ 13.00 10 4" Adiantum shastense $ 10.00 4 1G Adiantum x tracyi $ 13.00 2 2G Aesculus californica $ 12.00 1 4" Agave shawii var. shawii $ 8.00 1 1G Agave shawii var. shawii $ 15.00 4 1G Allium eurotophilum $ 10.00 3 1G Alnus incana var. tenuifolia $ 8.00 4 1G Amelanchier alnifolia var. semiintegrifolia $ 9.00 8 2" Anemone drummondii var. drummondii $ 4.00 9 1G Anemopsis californica $ 9.00 8 1G Apocynum cannabinum $ 8.00 2 1G Aquilegia eximia $ 8.00 15 4" Aquilegia formosa $ 6.00 11 1G Aquilegia formosa $ 8.00 10 1G Aquilegia formosa 'Nana' $ 8.00 Arabis - see Boechera 5 1G Arctostaphylos auriculata $ 11.00 2 1G Arctostaphylos auriculata - large inflorescences from Black Diamond $ 11.00 1 1G Arctostaphylos bakeri $ 11.00 15 1G Arctostaphylos bakeri 'Louis Edmunds' $ 11.00 2 1G Arctostaphylos canescens subsp.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypomesus Nipponensis) Stock Trajectory in Lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura
    Open Journal of Marine Science, 2015, 5, 210-225 Published Online April 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojms http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2015.52017 Factors Affecting Japanese Pond Smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis) Stock Trajectory in Lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura Ashneel Ajay Singh1, Noriyuki Sunoh2, Shintaro Niwa2, Fumitaka Tokoro2, Daisuke Sakamoto1, Naoki Suzuki1, Kazumi Sakuramoto1* 1Department of Ocean Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan 2Freshwater Branch Office, Ibaraki Fisheries Research Institute, Ibaraki, Japan Email: *[email protected] Received 5 February 2015; accepted 26 March 2015; published 30 March 2015 Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract The Japanese pond smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis) stock has been observed to fluctuate quite ri- gorously over the years with sustained periods of low catch in Lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura of the Ibaraki prefecture, Japan which would adversely affect the socioeconomic livelihood of the lo- cal fishermen and fisheries industry. This study was aimed at determining the factors affecting the stock fluctuation of the pond smelt through the different years in the two lakes. Through explora- tory analysis it was found that the pond smelt had significant relationship with total phosphorus (TP) level in both lakes. The global mean land and ocean temperature index (LOTI) was also found to be indirectly related to the pond smelt stock in lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura at the latitude band of 24˚N to 90˚N (l).
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County Rainfall Map (1.81MB)
    128 OAT VALLEY CREEK ALDER CREEK Mendocino County CREEK BIG SULPHUR CREEK CLOVERDALE 40 Cloverdale 29 60 CREEK OSSER CREEK PORTERFIELD SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY 45 40 LITTLE SULPHUR CREEK BUCKEYE CREEK 40 Lake County FLAT RIDGE CREEK 45 GUALALA RIVER 50 55 60 70 GRASSHOPPER CREEK 55 Sea Ranch 60 65 75 70 RANCHERIA CREEK LITTLE CREEK 55 50 GILL CREEK Annapolis 4 A SAUSAL CREEK 55 45 Lake STRAWBERRY CREEK Sonoma MILLER CREEK BURNS CREEK 50 TOMBS CREEK 45 65 WHEATFIELD Geyserville INGALLS CREEK FORK GUALALA-SALMON GUALALA-SALMON WOOD CREEK 1 GEORGE YOUNG CREEK BOYD CREEK MILL STREAM SOUTH FORK GUALALA BEAR CREEK FULLER CREEK COON CREEK 40 LITTLE BRIGGS CREEK RIVER 50 GIRD CREEK BRIGGS CREEK 7 A MAACAMA CREEK Jimtown WINE CREEK 6 A KELLOGG CREEK GRAIN CREEK HOUSE CREEK 60 CEDAR CREEK INDIANCREEK LANCASTER CREEK DANFIELD CREEK FALL CREEK OWL CREEK 40 Stewarts Point HOOT WOODS CREEK CRANE CREEK HAUPT CREEK YELLOWJACKET CREEK FOOTE CREEK REDWOOD CREEK GUALALA RIVER WALLACE CREEK 60 128 Lake JIM CREEK Berryessa ANGEL CREEK Healdsburg RUSSIAN RIVER SPROULE CREEK MILL CREEK DEVIL CREEK AUSTIN CREEK RUSSIAN RIVER SLOUGHWEST MARTIN CREEK BIG AUSTIN CREEK GILLIAM CREEK THOMPSON CREEK PALMER CREEK FELTA CREEK FRANZ CREEK BLUE JAY CREEK MCKENZIE CREEK BARNES CREEK BIG OAT CREEK Windsor MARK WEST CREEK COVE 75 WARD CREEK POOL CREEK PORTER CREEKMILL CREEK Fort Ross 80 HUMBUG CREEK TIMBER Cazadero STAR FIFE CREEK CREEK 55 PRUITT 45 HOBSON CREEK CREEK 50 NEAL CREEK 1 A 60 Hacienda REDWOOD CREEK RUSSIAN WIKIUP KIDD CREEK Guerneville CREEK VAN BUREN CREEK 101 RINCON CREEK RIVER 70 35 WEEKS CREEK 50 FULTON CREEK 65 BRUSH CREEK DUCKER CREEK GREEN COFFEYCREEK PINER CREEK 5 A VALLEY Forestville 60 CREEK CREEK RUSSELL BRUSH CREEK LAGUNA 55 Monte Rio CREEK AUSTIN BEAR CREEK RIVER CREEK GREEN FORESTVILLECREEK PAULIN CREEK DUTCH PINER CREEK Santa Rosa DE PETERSONCREEKFORESTVIEW SANTA ROSA CREEK OAKMONT STEELE VALLEY WENDELL CREEK CREEK BILL SANTA CREEK 45 SONOMA CREEK RUSSIAN GRUB CREEK SPRING CREEK LAWNDALECREEK 40 Napa County STATE HWY 116 COLLEGE CREEK CREEK HOOD MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plant Species
    Rare plant species of the upper Sausal Creek watershed Scientific Name Common Name Status Acer macrophyllum big-leaf maple rscw Acer negundo var.californicum box-elder LW Achillea millefolium yarrow rscw Actaea rubra baneberry LB Adenostema fasciculatum chamise rscw Adiantum aleuticum five-finger fern LA2 Adiantum jordanii California maidenhair rscw Alnus rhombifolia white alder rscw Alnus rubra red alder LA1 Amsinckia ssp. fiddleneck rscw Aralia californica elk-clover LB Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone LB Arctostaphylos pallida pallid manzanita FT/SE Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. crustacea brittleleaf manzanita LB Asarum caudatum wild ginger LA2 Aster radulinus aster rscw Astragalus gambelianus rscw Berberis pinnata ssp. pinnata California barberry LW Brodiaea elegans ssp. elegans harvest brodiaea rscw Calochortus luteus yellow mariposa lily rscw Calochortus umbellatus Oakland star-tulip C4 Ceanothus oliganthus var. sorediatus jimbrush rscw Ceanothus thyrsiflorus blueblossom LB Cercocarpus betuloides var. betuloides mountain mahogany LW Chrysolepis chrysophylla var.minor golden chinquapin LA1 Cirsium occidentale var. venustum Venus thistle LW Clarkia rubicunda farewell-to-spring rscw Clematis lasiantha pipestems rscw Collinsia heterophylla chinese houses rscw Cornus sericea ssp. sericea American dogwood LA3 Cynoglossum grande hound's tongue LW Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum blue dicks rscw Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood C1B Disporum hookeri fairy bells LW Elymus multisetus big squirreltail rscw Epilobium canum ssp. canum california fuchsia rscw Eriogonum nudum var. auriculatum eared buckwheat LW Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum golden yarrow rscw Fritillaria affinis ssp. affinis checker lily rscw Galium triflorum sweet-scented bedstraw LA2 Garrya elliptica coast silk-tassle LW Gaultheria shallon salal LA1 Gilia achilleifolia ssp. multicaulis rscw Gnaphalium bicolor rscw Gnaphalium canescens ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Coexistence of Resident and Anadromous Pond Smelt, Hypomesus Nipponensis, in Lake Ogawara
    33 Coexistence of resident and anadromous pond smelt, Hypomesus nipponensis, in Lake Ogawara SATOSHIKATAYAMA Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, 981-8555, Japan (katayama@bios. tohoku. ac.jp) SUMMARY. Pond smelt, Hypomesus nipponensis, inhabit fresh, brackish, and oceanic waters, and support substantial commercial fisheries in Japanese lakes. Pond smelt in Lake Ogawara, northern Japan, display a bimodal body length distribution during the spawning season, despite being 0+ fish. Analyses of otolith microstructure and microchemistry were utilized to discriminate anadromous from resident individuals, and revealed that individuals smaller than 60 mm SL were resident, those between 60-80 mm were mixed resident and anadromous, and those larger than 80 mm were anadromous. Intensive research on the reproductive ecology identified spawning localities in the lake and inflowing rivers. Although only anadromous fish spawned in inflowing rivers, spawners in the lake were a mixture of anadromous and resident individuals, suggesting that anadromous and resident spawning groups share a common spawning ground. These fish spawn during almost the same period from mid March to early May. Therefore, reproductive isolation does not appear to occur, and genetic differentiation has not been found through isozyme and mtDNA analyses. The anadromous and resident life history styles appear to be ecological variations within a single population. Lastly, qualitative and quantitative contributions of migratory and non-migratory pond smelts to the next generation were examined and heterogeneity in the life history of this population was discussed. KEYWORDS: residence, anadromy, pond smelt, alternative life history styles INTRODUCTION throughout the year and all over the take. 2,3) Anadromous migration has been studied mainly for salmonids.
    [Show full text]
  • SONOMA VALLEY HISTORICAL HYDROLOGY MAPPING PROJECT, TASK 2.4.B: FINAL REPORT
    Sonoma Valley Historical Hydrology Mapping Project Phase I FINAL REPORT Task 2.4b Arthur Dawson, Baseline Consulting Alex Young, Sonoma Ecology Center Rebecca Lawton Consulting Funded by the Sonoma County Water Agency November 2016 Prepared by: Baseline Consulting, 13750 Arnold Drive, P.O. Box 207, Glen Ellen, CA 95442 Sonoma Ecology Center, P.O. Box 1486, Eldridge, CA 95431 Rebecca Lawton Consulting, P.O. Box 654, Vineburg, CA 95687 BASELINE CONSULTING, SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER, REBECCA LAWTON CONSULTING 2 CONTENTS OVERVIEW 3 METHODS 5 RESULTS 17 DISCUSSION 22 Comparison of Modern & Historical Conditions 24 RECOMMENDATIONS 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY 30 FIGURES 1. Project Area, Sonoma Valley Watershed, Sonoma County, California 4 2. Definition of Terms and Assumptions 6 3. Wetland Designations Used in this Study 10 4. Certainty Level Standards 14 5. Data Limitations and Temporal Context 15 6. Dates of Sources Used in this Study in Relation to Long-Term Rainfall 16 7. Estimated Pre-Settlement Freshwater Channels and Wetlands 18 8. Estimated Pre-Settlement Freshwater Channels and Wetlands (LIDAR Basemap) 19 9. Estimated Pre-Settlement Freshwater Channels and Wetlands (USGS quads) 20 10. Certainty Levels for Presence of Features Mapped from Historical Sources 21 11. Average annual hydrographs for the historical watershed for Napa River 25 APPENDIXES A. Selected Historical Maps A1. Detail from O’Farrell’s 1848 Rancho Petaluma Map A-2 A2. Confluence of Agua Caliente and Sonoma Creeks in 1860 A-3 A3. Confluence of Agua Caliente and Sonoma Creeks in 1980 A-4 A4. Alternate Channels Occupied by Pythian, an Unnamed Creek, and Sonoma Creek A-5 B.
    [Show full text]
  • PREHISTORIC FORAGING PATTERNS at CA-SAC-47 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA a Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department Of
    PREHISTORIC FORAGING PATTERNS AT CA-SAC-47 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Anthropology California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Anthropology by Justin Blake Cairns SUMMER 2016 © 2016 Justin Blake Cairns ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii PREHISTORIC FORAGING PATTERNS AT CA-SAC-47 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A Thesis by Justin Blake Cairns Approved by: ________________________________, Committee Chair Mark E. Basgall, Ph.D. ________________________________, Second Reader Jacob L. Fisher, Ph.D. ____________________________ Date iii Student: Justin Blake Cairns I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________________, Graduate Coordinator _______________ Jacob Fisher, Ph.D. Date Department of Anthropology iv Abstract of PREHISTORIC FORAGING PATTERNS AT CA-SAC-47 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA by Justin Blake Cairns Subsistence studies conducted on regional archaeological deposits indicate that in the Sacramento Delta, as in the rest of the Central Valley, there is a decrease in foraging efficiency during the Late Period. A recently excavated site, CA-SAC-47, provides direct evidence of subsistence strategies in the form of faunal and plant remains. This faunal assemblage is compared to direct evidence of subsistence from Delta sites SAC-42, SAC-43, SAC-65, SAC-145, and SAC-329. The results and implications of this direct evidence are used to address site variability and resource selectivity. ___________________________________, Committee Chair Mark E.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytophthora Pathogens Threaten Rare Habitats and Conservation Plantings
    Phytophthora pathogens threaten rare habitats and conservation plantings Susan J. Frankel1, Janice Alexander2, Diana Benner3, Janell Hillman4 & Alisa Shor5 Abstract Phytophthora pathogens are damaging native wildland vegetation including plants in restoration areas and botanic gardens. The infestations threaten some plants already designated as endangered and degrade high-value habitats. Pathogens are being introduced primarily via container plant nursery stock and, once established, they can spread to adjacent areas where plant species not previously exposed to pathogens may become infected. We review epidemics in California – caused by the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum Werres, De Cock & Man in ‘t Veld and the frst USA detections of P. tentaculata Krber & Marwitz, which occurred in native plant nurseries and restoration areas – as examples to illustrate these threats to conservation plantings. Introduction stock) (Liebhold et al., 2012; Parke et al., Phytophthora (order: Peronosporales; 2014; Jung et al., 2015; Swiecki et al., kingdom: Stramenopila) pathogens 2018b; Sims et al., 2019). Once established, have increasingly been identifed as Phytophthora spp. have the potential associated with plant dieback and to reduce growth, kill and cause other mortality in restoration areas (Bourret, undesirable impacts on a wide variety of 2018; Garbelotto et al., 2018; Sims et al., native or horticultural vegetation (Brasier 2019), threatened and endangered species et al., 2004; Hansen 2007, 2011; Scott & habitat (Swiecki et al., 2018a), botanic Williams, 2014; Jung et al., 2018). gardens and wildlands in coastal California In this review, we focus on the (Cobb et al., 2017; Metz et al., 2017) and consequences of two pathogen southern Oregon (Goheen et al., 2017).
    [Show full text]