DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendices: Conservation Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendices: Conservation Strategy List of Appendices Appendix A Chronological List of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Process for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Appendix B Estimating Numbers of Females with Cubs-of-the-Year in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Population Appendix C Calculation of Total Population Size and Mortality Limits Appendix D Existing Bear Foods and Related Monitoring Programs Appendix E Habitat Baseline 1998 and Monitoring Protocol Appendix F Lead Agencies for Actions under the Conservation Strategy Appendix G The Relationship between the Five Factors in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the Existing Laws and Authorities Appendix H Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Southwestern Montana Appendix I Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan Appendix J Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Management Plan (State of Idaho) Appendix K Reassessing Methods to Estimate Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits for the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Appendix L Supplement to Reassessing Methods to Estimate Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits for the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Appendix M Updating and Evaluating Approaches to Estimate Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits for Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Appendix N Grizzly Bear Management Plan for the Wind River Reservation Appendix O Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Management and Allocation of Discretionary Mortality of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Appendix A. Chronological List of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Process for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem I. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan revision (1993) II. Workshop on habitat-based recovery criteria (1997) III. Achievement of recovery targets in the Recovery Plan for demographic values and for habitat criteria specified for that grizzly bear population (1999) IV. Conservation Strategy development for the Yellowstone area, including habitat-based recovery criteria, and release of draft Conservation Strategy for review (2000) V. Publication of Proposed Rule in the Federal Register (2005). Proposed Rule documents the status of the population according to the five factors in ESA Section 4(a)(1) including population and habitat status, and references Conservation Strategy for documentation of the existence of adequate regulatory mechanisms and consideration of DPS policy. VI. Public comment period with public hearings VII. Consideration and incorporation of public comments and any new information developed as a result of the comment period VIII. Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Register of status change or continuation of listed status in conjunction with release of the final Conservation Strategy, final Habitat Criteria, and final DPS analysis (2007). IX. Relisting of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population (2010) in compliance with an order from the District Court of Montana that overturned the final rule (2009). X. Concurrent publication in the Federal Register of the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy, draft Recovery Plan Supplement: Demographic Criteria, and Proposed Rule. Proposed Rule documents the status of the population according to the five factors in ESA Section 4(a)(1) including population and habitat status, and references Conservation Strategy for documentation of the existence of adequate regulatory mechanisms and consideration of DPS policy. XI. Public comment period with public hearings XII. Peer review XIII. Consideration and incorporation of public comments, peer review, and any new information developed as a result of the comment period XIV. MOU to implement the Conservation Strategy signed by all agencies Appendix A XV. Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Register of status change or continuation of listed status in conjunction with release of the final 2016 Conservation Strategy and final Recovery Plan Supplement: Demographic Criteria. Appendix B. Estimating Numbers of Females with Cubs-of-the-Year in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Population Appendix B ESTIMATINGNUMBERS OF FEMALESWITH CUBS-OF-THE-YEAR INTHE YELLOWSTONEGRIZZLY BEAR POPULATION KIMA. KEATING,U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center,Montana State University,Bozeman, MT 59717, USA, email: [email protected] CHARLESC. SCHWARTZ,U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center,Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, MontanaState University,Bozeman, MT59717, USA, email: [email protected] MARKA. HAROLDSON,U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center,Interagency Grizzly Bear StudyTeam, MontanaState University,Bozeman, MT59717, USA, email: [email protected] DAVIDMOODY, Wyoming Game and Fish Department,260 BuenaVista, Lander,WY 82520, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: For grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the GreaterYellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), minimumpopulation size and allowable num- bers of human-causedmortalities have been calculatedas a functionof the numberof unique females with cubs-of-the-year(FCUB) seen duringa 3- year period. This approachunderestimates the total numberof FCUB,thereby biasing estimatesof populationsize and sustainablemortality. Also, it does not permitcalculation of valid confidence bounds. Many statisticalmethods can resolve or mitigate these problems,but there is no universal best method. Instead,relative performancesof differentmethods can vary with populationsize, sample size, and degree of heterogeneityamong sighting probabilitiesfor individualanimals. We compared7 nonparametricestimators, using Monte Carlo techniquesto assess performancesover the range of sampling conditions deemed plausible for the Yellowstone population. Our goal was to estimate the numberof FCUBpresent in the populationeach year. Ourevaluation differed from previouscomparisons of such estimatorsby including sample coverage methodsand by treating individualsightings, ratherthan sample periods, as the sample unit. Consequently,our conclusions also differ from earlierstudies. Recommenda- tions regardingestimators and necessary sample sizes are presented,together with estimates of annualnumbers of FCUBin the Yellowstone popula- tion with bootstrapconfidence bounds. Ursus 13:161-174 (2002) Key words: GreaterYellowstone Ecosystem, grizzly bear, nonparametricstatistics, populationestimation, Ursus arctos horribilis, Yellowstone National Park Criteria for recovering the grizzly bear in the lower has an equal probabilityof being sighted. Because this United States include annual limits on mortalities(U.S. assumptionis untenablefor the Yellowstone data (K.A. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Since 1993, these limits Keating, M.A. Haroldson,D. Moody,and C.C. Schwartz, have been calculatedas a function of the numberof FcB 1999, Estimatingthe numberof females with cubs-of-the- presentin the population,as estimatedduring 6-year run- yearin the Yellowstonegrizzly bearpopulation: are maxi- ning periods. Currently,the numberof Fcu presenteach mum-likelihoodestimates that assume equal sightability year (N) is estimatedas the numberof such animalsactu- conservative? U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, ally observed (Nobs). To the extent thatcriteria for distin- Montana,USA) estimatesbased on these methodswill be guishing family groups are conservative (see Knight et negativelybiased. Seekinga morerobust approach, Boyce al. 1995), and because it is highly unlikely that all such et al. (2001) recommendedjoint estimationof N over all animalsare seen, NobSalmost certainlyunderestimates N. years using an estimatorderived from the zero-truncated This helps ensure that mortalitylimits are conservative, negative binomial distribution. This estimator can be but precludes calculation of valid confidence bounds. tracedto Greenwoodand Yule (1920), with early applica- Moreover,use of a biased estimatorlike Nobseffectively tions to wildlife populationestimation by Tanton(1965, removesdecisions regarding the appropriatedegree of con- 1969) and Taylor(1966). The samplingmodel assumed servatism from the purview of managers. This is not a by the negative binomial estimatorallows for heteroge- trivial issue because the magnitudesof biases and uncer- neous sightingprobabilities among individualsand, thus, taintiesinherent in Nobsmay be biologically and manage- is equivalentto model Mh of Otis et al. (1978). Unfortu- rially significant. nately, Boyce et al. (2001) found that the negative bino- Efforts to calculate statistically sound estimates of N mial estimator gave reasonable results only when the have focused on parametricapproaches. Eberhardtand coefficient of variationamong individual sighting prob- Knight (1996) applied the Peterson-type estimators of abilities(CV) was assumedto be constantover time. This and Chapman Bailey (Seber 1982), andBoyce et al. (M.S. assumption is difficult to justify for grizzly bears in Boyce, D. MacKenzie,B.F.J. Manly, M.A. Haroldson,and Yellowstone, where year-to-yeardifferences in distribu- D. Cumulativecounts Moody, 1999, of unique individu- tions and abundancesof foods affect bearmovement pat- als for estimatingpopulation size, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ternsand, in turn,the likelihood of seeing particularbears Service, Missoula, Montana, USA) recommended the (Picton et al. 1986). Such differences almost certainly maximum likelihood method of Lewontin and Prout affect heterogeneityamong individual sighting probabili- These (1956). methods assume that each family group ties, implying thatCV varies amongyears. Also, because Appendix B 162 Ursus 13:2002 the size, distribution,and behavior of bear populations ticularsighting will be of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2008
    Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2008 Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Photo courtesy of Steve Ard Data contained in this report are preliminary and subject to change. Please obtain permission prior to citation. To give credit to authors, please cite the section within this report as a chapter in a book. Below is an example: Moody, D.S., K. Frey, and D. Meints. 2009. Trends in elk hunter numbers within the Primary Conservation Area plus the 10-mile perimeter area. Page 39 in C.C. Schwartz, M.A. Haroldson, and K. West, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2008. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana, USA. Cover: Female #533 with her 3 3-year-old offspring after den emergence, taken 1 May 2008 by Steve Ard. YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEAR INVESTIGATIONS Annual Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2008 U.S. Geological Survey Wyoming Game and Fish Department National Park Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks U.S. Forest Service Idaho Department of Fish and Game Edited by Charles C. Schwartz, Mark A. Haroldson, and Karrie West U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey 2009 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 This Report ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
    IV. Environmental Setting and Impacts H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Environmental Setting The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department maintains more than 200 parks, playgrounds, and open spaces throughout the City. The City’s park system also includes 15 recreation centers, nine swimming pools, five golf courses as well as tennis courts, ball diamonds, athletic fields and basketball courts. The Recreation and Park Department manages the Marina Yacht Harbor, Candlestick (Monster) Park, the San Francisco Zoo, and the Lake Merced Complex. In total, the Department currently owns and manages roughly 3,380 acres of parkland and open space. Together with other city agencies and state and federal open space properties within the city, about 6,360 acres of recreational resources (a variety of parks, walkways, landscaped areas, recreational facilities, playing fields and unmaintained open areas) serve San Francisco.172 San Franciscans also benefit from the Bay Area regional open spaces system. Regional resources include public open spaces managed by the East Bay Regional Park District in Alameda and Contra Costa counties; the National Park Service in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties as well as state park and recreation areas throughout. In addition, thousands of acres of watershed and agricultural lands are preserved as open spaces by water and utility districts or in private ownership. The Bay Trail is a planned recreational corridor that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 400-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails. It will connect the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, link 47 cities, and cross the major toll bridges in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Table S1: Developed Sites Comprising the 1998 Baseline and Subsequent Changes Last Updated: 3/31/2015
    Supplemental Table S1: Developed Sites Comprising the 1998 Baseline and Subsequent Changes Last Updated: 3/31/2015 Table S1. Developed sites (name and type) comprising the 1998 baseline and subsequent changes per Bear Management Subunit inside the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (Developed sites that are new, removed, or in which capacity of human-use has been modified since 1998 are highlighted and italicized). Bear Management Admin Name and type of developed sites subunit Unit Developed Campgrounds: Cave Falls. Trailheads: Coyote Meadows, Hominy Peak, S. Boone Creek, Fish Lake, Cascade Creek. Major Developed Sites: Loll Scout Camp, Idaho Youth Services Camp. Administrative or Maintenance Sites: Squirrel Meadows Guard Station/Cabin, Porcupine Guard Station, Badger Creek Seismograph Site, and Squirrel Meadows CTNF GS/WY Game & Fish Cabin. Other Developed Sites: Grassy Lake Dam, Tillery Lake Dam, Indian Lake Dam, Bergman Res. Dam, Loon Lake Disperse sites, Horseshoe Lake Disperse sites, Porcupine Creek Disperse sites, Gravel Pit/Target Range, Boone Creek Disperse Sites, Tillery Lake O&G Camp, Calf Creek O&G Camp, Bergman O&G Camp, Granite Creek Cow Camp, Poacher’s TH, Indian Meadows TH, McRenolds Res. TH/Wildlife Viewing Area/Dam. Bechler/Teton #1 Trailheads: 9K1 and Cave Falls. Administrative or Maintenance Sites: South Entrance and Bechler Ranger Stations. YNP Other Developed Sites: Union Falls and Snake River picnic areas. Developed Campgrounds: Grassy Lake Road campsites (8 individual car camping sites). Trailheads: Glade Creek, Lower Berry Creek, Flagg Canyon. Major Developed Sites: Flagg Ranch (lodge, cabins and Headwater Campground with camper cabins, remote cistern and sewage treatment plant sites). Administrative or Maintenance Sites: Flagg Ranch Ranger GTNP Station, Flagg Ranch employee housing, Flagg Ranch maintenance yard.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Fill in San Francisco: a History of Change
    SDMS DOCID# 1137835 BAY FILL IN SAN FRANCISCO: A HISTORY OF CHANGE A thesis submitted to the faculty of California State University, San Francisco in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Gerald Robert Dow Department of Geography July 1973 Permission is granted for the material in this thesis to be reproduced in part or whole for the purpose of education and/or research. It may not be edited, altered, or otherwise modified, except with the express permission of the author. - ii - - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Maps . vi INTRODUCTION . .1 CHAPTER I: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF SAN FRANCISCO’S TIDELANDS . .4 Definition of Tidelands . .5 Evolution of Tideland Ownership . .5 Federal Land . .5 State Land . .6 City Land . .6 Sale of State Owned Tidelands . .9 Tideland Grants to Railroads . 12 Settlement of Water Lot Claims . 13 San Francisco Loses Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 14 San Francisco Regains Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 15 The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Port of San Francisco . 18 CHAPTER II: YERBA BUENA COVE . 22 Introduction . 22 Yerba Buena, the Beginning of San Francisco . 22 Yerba Buena Cove in 1846 . 26 San Francisco’s First Waterfront . 26 Filling of Yerba Buena Cove Begins . 29 The Board of State Harbor Commissioners and the First Seawall . 33 The New Seawall . 37 The Northward Expansion of San Francisco’s Waterfront . 40 North Beach . 41 Fisherman’s Wharf . 43 Aquatic Park . 45 - iii - Pier 45 . 47 Fort Mason . 48 South Beach . 49 The Southward Extension of the Great Seawall .
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Adventure Vacation Guide Cody Yellowstone Adventure Vacation Guide 3
    2021 ADVENTURE VACATION GUIDE CODY YELLOWSTONE ADVENTURE VACATION GUIDE 3 WELCOME TO THE GREAT AMERICAN ADVENTURE. The West isn’t just a direction. It’s not just a mark on a map or a point on a compass. The West is our heritage and our soul. It’s our parents and our grandparents. It’s the explorers and trailblazers and outlaws who came before us. And the proud people who were here before them. It’s the adventurous spirit that forged the American character. It’s wide-open spaces that dare us to dream audacious dreams. And grand mountains that make us feel smaller and bigger all at the same time. It’s a thump in your chest the first time you stand face to face with a buffalo. And a swelling of pride that a place like this still exists. It’s everything great about America. And it still flows through our veins. Some people say it’s vanishing. But we say it never will. It will live as long as there are people who still live by its code and safeguard its wonders. It will live as long as there are places like Yellowstone and towns like Cody, Wyoming. Because we are blood brothers, Yellowstone and Cody. One and the same. This is where the Great American Adventure calls home. And if you listen closely, you can hear it calling you. 4 CODYYELLOWSTONE.ORG CODY YELLOWSTONE ADVENTURE VACATION GUIDE 5 William F. “Buffalo Bill” Cody with eight Native American members of the cast of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, HISTORY ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3-‐1 Historic Resources Evaluation
    Appendix 3-1 Historic Resources Evaluation HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION SEAWALL LOT 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Development Project San Francisco, California April 11, 2016 Prepared by San Francisco, California Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall Lot 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Project, San Francisco, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 1 III. Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 3 IV. Property Description ................................................................................................... ….....6 V. Historical Context ....................................................................................................... ….....24 VI. Determination of Eligibility.................................................................................... ……....44 VII. Evaluation of the Project for Compliance with the Standards ............................. 45 VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 58 IX. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 59 April 11, 2016 Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall
    [Show full text]
  • DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial
    State of California & The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial Page 1 of 32 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Potrero Point Historic District D1. Historic Name Potrero Point/Lower Potrero D2. Common Name: Central Waterfront *D3. Detailed Description (Discuss coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of district.): The Potrero Point Historic District (also referred to as the Central Waterfront) is located in the Potrero Hill district of San Francisco on the western side of San Francisco Bay in the City of San Francisco between Mission Creek on the north and Islais Creek to the south. The approximately 500-acre area is more precisely described as a roughly rectangular district bounded by Sixteenth Street to the north, San Francisco Bay to the east, Islais Creek to the south, and U.S. Interstate 280 to the west. The area measures approximately 1.3 miles from north to south, and approximately 0.6 miles wide from east to west. (See Continuation Sheet, Pg. 2) *D4. Boundary Description (Describe limits of district and attach map showing boundary and district elements.): The Potrero Point (Central Waterfront) area is enclosed within a rectangle formed by the following streets and natural features: Beginning at the northwest corner of Pennsylvania and Sixteenth streets, the northern boundary of the area extends east along Sixteenth Street into San Francisco Bay. The boundary turns ninety degrees and heads south through the bay encompassing the entirety of Piers 70 and 80. At Islais Creek Channel, the boundary makes a ninety degree turn and heads west along the southern shore of the channel.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMISSION CANDIDATES by CJ BAKER Tribune Editor Talk Budget
    THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2018 108TH YEAR/ISSUE 58 COMMISSION CANDIDATES BY CJ BAKER Tribune Editor Talk budget, he Repub- lican can- development Tdidates for the Park County at public forum Commission who gathered in Powell last week seemed to gener- ally agree the county government has been run pretty well. But there were still a number of suggestions about how the county could do a bit better. Nine of the 10 Republicans seeking the three open seats on the commission attended the July 12 forum at the Park County Fairgrounds: incumbent Joe Tilden and challengers Lloyd Thiel of Clark, Pat Stuart of Heart Mountain, Dossie Overfield of Cody, Cathy Marine of Pow- ell, Anton Lehman of Heart Mountain, Richard George of Heart Mountain, Bob Berry of Cody and Zach Bowman of Cody. The only candidate missing at the Park County Republican Wom- en’s forum was Bob Stevens, a retired attorney See Commission, Page 3 Cody High School sophomore Colton Manchester (left) and teacher Dean Olenik secure a fence post above Soldier Creek in the Bighorn Mountain Range while Absentee ballots volunteers Garrett Nelson and Jasper Crofts carry dirt. Volunteers spent three days building the cow fence and will soon plant trees and bushes to provide cover and shade to help protect Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the creek. Tribune photos by Mark Davis available now Wyoming’s primary election is Aug. 21, but you don’t have to wait until then to cast your ballot. SOLDIERS FOR CUTTHROAT CONSERVATION Voters can request and cast absentee ballots VOLUNTEERS HELP PROTECT AN IMPORTANT CREEK IN THE BIGHORNS from now through Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Weekly Lists for 2003
    National Register of Historic Places 2003 Weekly Lists January 3, 2003 ............................................................................................................................................. 3 January 10, 2003 ........................................................................................................................................... 7 January 17, 2003 ......................................................................................................................................... 11 January 24, 2003 ......................................................................................................................................... 14 January 31, 2003 ......................................................................................................................................... 16 February 7, 2003 ......................................................................................................................................... 18 February 14, 2003 ....................................................................................................................................... 19 February 21, 2003 ....................................................................................................................................... 22 February 28, 2003 ....................................................................................................................................... 24 March 7, 2003 ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • India Basin Survey
    INDIA BASIN SURVEY SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT REPORT PREPARED FOR BAYVIEW HISTORICAL SOCIETY May 1, 2008 KELLEY & VERPLANCK HISTORICAL RESOURCES CONSULTING 2912 DIAMOND STREET #330, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131 415.337.5824 // WWW.KVPCONSULTING.COM Historic Context Statement India Basin Survey San Francisco, California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 A. PURPOSE................................................................................................................................ 1 B. DEFINITION OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREA ................................................................................ 1 C. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND PERIODS OF SIGNIFICANCE .....................2 II. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................. 3 III. IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS............................................................... 4 A. HERE TODAY.........................................................................................................................4 B. 1976 CITYWIDE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ............................................................................4 C. SAN FRANCISCO ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE......................................................................4 D. ARTICLE 10 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE .......................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey Summary Report and Draft Context Statement
    Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey San Francisco Planning Department October 2000–September 2001, Page 1 Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey Summary Report and Draft Context Statement Figure 1: View from Jones and California Streets, looking toward Mission Bay, c. 1867. The activity which is the subject of this Cultural Resources Survey has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. October 2000 – October 2001 Prepared by: San Francisco Planning Department Acknowledging the contributions of: Central Waterfront Survey Advisory Committee San Francisco Architectural Heritage Dogpatch Neighborhood Association Page and Turnbull, Architects Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey San Francisco Planning Department October 2000–September 2001, Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. Planning Commission Anita Theoharis, President William Fay, Vice-President Roslyn Baltimore Hector Chinchilla Cynthia Joe Myrna Lim Jim Salinas, Sr. Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Tim Kelley, President Suheil Shatara, Vice-President Ina Dearman Paul Finwall Nancy Ho-Belli
    [Show full text]
  • D. Cultural Resources Archeological Resources
    4. Environmental Setting and Impacts D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, considers both archeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and historic architectural resources. Archeological resources are discussed first, followed by a separate discussion of historic architectural resources that begins on p. 4.D.33. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES This subsection assesses the potential for the presence of archeological resources within the project site, provides a context for evaluating the significance of archeological resources that may be encountered, evaluates the potential impacts (project and cumulative) of the Proposed Project on archeological resources, and provides mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce potential impacts on archeological resources. An independent consultant has prepared an Archeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) for the project site.1 The research and recommendations of the ARDTP are the basis for the information and conclusions of this EIR section with respect to archeological resources. The information in the ARDTP used in the preparation of this subsection was obtained from regional databases, plans, and reports relevant to the Proposed Project, including the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park photographic collection; the San Francisco History Center at the San Francisco Public Library; Sanborn Fire Insurance maps;2 San Francisco newspapers; the California Digital Newspaper Collection, sponsored by the University of California, Riverside; the Online Archive of California; the Union Iron Works Historic District National Register Nomination Form; the Library of Congress; and the David Rumsey Map Collection, which also provided useful sources of online maps, including those from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, and official City and County survey maps.
    [Show full text]