DOCSLIB.ORG

34Th America's Cup Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
34Th America's Cup Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 34TH AMERICA’S CUP RACES June 7, 2012 PREPARED FOR: U.S. Coast Guard The National Park Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Presidio Trust Draft Environmental Assessment 34th America’s Cup Races San Francisco, California Lead Agencies: National Park Service, U .S. Coast Guard Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Presidio Trust Pursuant to th e National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 USC 4332(2)(C)), the National Park Service and th e U.S. Coast Guard, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers and th e Presidio Trust, announce the availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) of the 34th America’s Cup Races. Th e races would take place on lands and waters administered by federal government. On December 31, 2010, the City of San Francisco was cho sen as th e location to host the 34th Ameri ca’s Cup (AC34) sailing races. Th e Ameri ca’s Cup race events are proposed to take place in Summer-Fall 2013, with preliminary “World Series” races in Summer-Fall 2012. Races are proposed for marine areas subject to th e U.S. Coast Guard authori ty and increased visitation is expected fo r lands managed by the National Park Service and the Presidio Trust. In addition, in-water facility upgrades and dredging are proposed along the San Francisco waterfront which would be subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ autho rity. In addition, in-water construction and dredging are proposed along the San Francisco waterfront and would be subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authority. Th e Draft EA evaluates potential environmental consequences o f implementing th e alternatives. Impact topics include the cultu ral, natural , and so cioeconomi c environments. All of the action alternatives include a specified race area, spectato r venues and secondary viewing areas, and race-related water-based developments. The Environmental Assessment (EA) presents and analyzes th e potential consequences o f implementing th e following al ternatives. Alternative A, No-Action Alternative B, Sponsor Proposed Project Alternative C, No Organized Events on NPS Lands Alternative D, Modified Program Alternative E, Preferred Decision Process: The EA with the preferred alternative is rel eased for public co mment on June 8, 2012. The comment period will be 30 days (until Saturday July 7, 2012). All public comments will be taken into consideration; and any ch anges to the p referred alternative will be described in an errata which will be attached to each federal agency's Finding and Environmental Decision. Comments will be accepted el ectronically at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/AC34 or su bmi tted by mail to: ESA, attn: AC34, 550 Kearny Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA 94108 A public meeting will be held on Thursday, June 21st from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. at the Golden Gate Club - Cypress Room, 135 Fisher Loop on the Main Post in the Presidio, San Francisco. Additional project information may be found at http://www.americascupnepa.org or http://parkplanning.nps.gov/AC34. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE AC34 AMERICA’S CUP TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS xi SUMMARY S-1 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1 1.1 Introduction and Background .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ............................................................................. 1-7 1.4 Summary of Laws, Regulations, Plans and Policies ............................................................ 1-8 1.5 Scoping Process and Public Participation ......................................................................... 1-15 1.6 Issues and Impact Topics ..................................................................................................... 1-18 1.6.1 Issues .......................................................................................................................... 1-18 1.6.2 Impact Topics Retained .......................................................................................... 1-18 1.6.3 Impact Topics Eliminated from Further Consideration ..................................... 1-22 1.7 References.............................................................................................................................. 1-23 2. ALTERNATIVES 2-1 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Agency Jurisdictions ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Study Area Overview .............................................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 Alternatives Development Process ..................................................................................... 2-19 2.5 Summary of Alternatives Evaluated ................................................................................... 2-21 2.6 Federal Team Preferred Alternative ................................................................................... 2-51 2.7 Environmentally Preferable Alternatives .......................................................................... 2-51 2.8 Alternative A – No Action .................................................................................................... 2-53 2.9 Elements Common to Action Alternatives ........................................................................ 2-53 2.10 Construction Schedule ......................................................................................................... 2-64 2.11 Alternative B – Sponsor Proposed Project ........................................................................ 2-64 2.12 Alternative C – No Organized Events on NPS Lands ...................................................... 2-85 2.13 Alternative D – Modified Program ..................................................................................... 2-92 2.14 Alternative E – Preferred Alternative ............................................................................... 2-100 2.15 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study ................................................................... 2-112 2.16 Relationship of Alternatives to Agency Objectives ........................................................ 2-118 2.17 Summary of Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 2-118 2.18 References............................................................................................................................ 2-123 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity ............................................................................................ 3.1-1 3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 3.2-1 3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3.3-1 AC34 America’s Cup / Environmental Assessment i TABLE OF CONTENTS 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (continued) 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change............................................................ 3.4-1 3.5 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 3.5-1 3.6 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 3.6-1 3.7 Visitor Use and Experience ................................................................................................ 3.7-1 3.8 Soundscape and Noise ....................................................................................................... 3.8-1 3.9 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................. 3.9-1 3.10 Transportation and Circulation ....................................................................................... 3.10-1 3.11 Maritime Navigation and Safety ..................................................................................... 3.11-1 3.12 Facilities and Operations .................................................................................................. 3.12-1 3.13 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................. 3.13-1 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity ............................................................................................ 4.1-1 4.2 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 4.3-1 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change............................................................ 4.4-1 4.5 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project
    APPENDIX D Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Eileen Barrow, M.A. June 6, 2016 An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Prepared by: _________________________________ Eileen Barrow, M.A. Tom Origer & Associates Post Office Box 1531 Rohnert Park, California 94927 (707) 584-8200 Prepared for: Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Santa Rosa, California 95407 June 6, 2016 ABSTRACT Tom Origer & Associates conducted an archival study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project, as requested by the Sonoma County Water Agency. This study was designed to meet requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Per the findings of the National Marine Fisheries Service (2008), the Sonoma County Water Agency is seeking to improve Coho salmon and steelhead habitat in the Russian River and Dry Creek by modifying the minimum instream flow requirements specified by the State Water Resources Control Board's 1986 Decision 1610. The current study includes a ⅛ mile buffer around Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, the Russian River from Coyote Valley Dam to the Pacific Ocean, and Dry Creek from Warm Springs Dam to the Russian River. The study included archival research at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University (NWIC File No. 15-1481); archival research at the Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley; examination of the library and files of Tom Origer & Associates; and contact with the Native American community. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at the offices of Tom Origer & Associates (File No.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Cultural Resources
    4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Cultural Resources 4.8.1 Introduction This section reviews the existing conditions related to cultural resources in the Russian River Estuary (Estuary Management Project or proposed project) area and presents the potential impacts on cultural and paleontological resources. As previously noted in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the Estuary Study Area comprises the Russian River Estuary (Estuary), which extends approximately seven miles from the mouth of the Russian River upstream to Duncans Mills just beyond the confluence of Austin Creek. Under certain closed conditions, the Estuary may backwater to Monte Rio, and as far upstream as Vacation Beach. Where appropriate, discussion of cultural resource impacts within the Estuary Study Area and the larger maximum backwater area, which extends upstream past Austin Creek approximately to Vacation Beach, is provided (Please refer to Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description). Cultural resources include prehistoric and ethnographic Native American archaeological sites, historic-period archaeological sites, historic-period buildings and structures, and elements or areas of the natural landscape that have traditional cultural significance. A paleontological resource is defined as fossilized remains of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms, fossil tracks, and plant fossils. The section also describes the federal, state, and local regulations related to cultural and paleontological resources that would apply to the proposed project. 4.8.2 Setting Prehistoric Context Categorizing the prehistoric period into broad cultural stages allows researchers to describe a broad range of archaeological resources with similar cultural patterns and components during a given timeframe, thereby creating a regional chronology.
    [Show full text]
  • W • 32°38'47.76”N 117°8'52.44”
    public access 32°32’4”N 117°7’22”W • 32°38’47.76”N 117°8’52.44”W • 33°6’14”N 117°19’10”W • 33°22’45”N 117°34’21”W • 33°45’25.07”N 118°14’53.26”W • 33°45’31.13”N 118°20’45.04”W • 33°53’38”N 118°25’0”W • 33°55’17”N 118°24’22”W • 34°23’57”N 119°30’59”W • 34°27’38”N 120°1’27”W • 34°29’24.65”N 120°13’44.56”W • 34°58’1.2”N 120°39’0”W • 35°8’54”N 120°38’53”W • 35°20’50.42”N 120°49’33.31”W • 35°35’1”N 121°7’18”W • 36°18’22.68”N 121°54’5.76”W • 36°22’16.9”N 121°54’6.05”W • 36°31’1.56”N 121°56’33.36”W • 36°58’20”N 121°54’50”W • 36°33’59”N 121°56’48”W • 36°35’5.42”N 121°57’54.36”W • 37°0’42”N 122°11’27”W • 37°10’54”N 122°23’38”W • 37°41’48”N 122°29’57”W • 37°45’34”N 122°30’39”W • 37°46’48”N 122°30’49”W • 37°47’0”N 122°28’0”W • 37°49’30”N 122°19’03”W • 37°49’40”N 122°30’22”W • 37°54’2”N 122°38’40”W • 37°54’34”N 122°41’11”W • 38°3’59.73”N 122°53’3.98”W • 38°18’39.6”N 123°3’57.6”W • 38°22’8.39”N 123°4’25.28”W • 38°23’34.8”N 123°5’40.92”W • 39°13’25”N 123°46’7”W • 39°16’30”N 123°46’0”W • 39°25’48”N 123°25’48”W • 39°29’36”N 123°47’37”W • 39°33’10”N 123°46’1”W • 39°49’57”N 123°51’7”W • 39°55’12”N 123°56’24”W • 40°1’50”N 124°4’23”W • 40°39’29”N 124°12’59”W • 40°45’13.53”N 124°12’54.73”W 41°18’0”N 124°0’0”W • 41°45’21”N 124°12’6”W • 41°52’0”N 124°12’0”W • 41°59’33”N 124°12’36”W Public Access David Horvitz & Ed Steck In late December of 2010 and early Janu- Some articles already had images, in which ary of 2011, I drove the entire California I added mine to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Estuary Management Project Draft
    4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4.1 Introduction This section describes biological resources, with focus on terrestrial and wetland resources, and assesses potential impacts that could occur with implementation of the Russian River Estuary Management Project (Estuary Management Project or proposed project). Fisheries resources are addressed in Section 4.5, Fisheries. Terrestrial and wetland resources include terrestrial, wetland, and non-fisheries-related species, sensitive habitats or natural communities, special-status plant and animal species, and protected trees. Impacts on terrestrial and wetland resources are analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). For impacts determined to be either significant or potentially significant, mitigation measures to minimize or avoid these impacts are identified. Information Sources and Survey Methodology The primary sources of information for this analysis are the existing biological resource studies and reports prepared for the Russian River Estuary (Estuary) (Heckel, 1994; Merritt Smith Consulting, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; Sonoma County Water Agency [Water Agency; SCWA in references] and Merritt Smith Consulting 2001; SCWA, 2006; SCWA and Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods, 2009). These reports, incorporated by reference, present the methods and results of vegetation classification and mapping, fish and invertebrate sampling, amphibian surveys, and observations of bird and pinniped1 numbers and behavior, as well as other sampling efforts (e.g., water quality sampling) conducted in the Russian River Estuary. In addition to the reports listed above, information was obtained from conservation and management plans and planning documents prepared for lands within the project vicinity (Prunuske Chatham, Inc., 2005; California Department of Parks and Recreation [State Parks], 2007), as well as the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY and MANAGEMENT PLAN for SONOMA LAND TRUST's Lmle BLACK MOUNTAIN PROPERTY
    A CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SONOMA LAND TRUST'S LmLE BLACK MOUNTAIN PROPERTY By Leslie E. Smirnoff A thesis submitted to Sonoma State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Cultural Resources Management IlOffiaSiaco bson, J.D. Tliomas Origer, MA. Copyright 2009 By Leslie E. Smimoff ii AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTERS THESIS I grant pennission for the reproduction of parts of this thesis without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorb the cost and provide proper acknowledgment of authorship. Date: Street Address City, State, Zip A CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SONOMA LAND TRUSTtS LITTLE BLACK MOUNTAIN PROPERTY Thesis by Leslie E. Smirnoff ABSTRACT PURPOSE OF THESIS: The aims of this thesis are to provide Sonoma Land Trust with a cultural resources management plan that will fit neatly both into any regulatory framework that may become pertinent and with Sonoma Land Trust's mission and future plans for the Little Black Mountain property. Additionally, this document outlines the resources present on the property and discusses potential impacts to them while recommending ways to preserve them. The purpose of a cultural resources inventory and management plan is often in fulfillment of regulatory compliance with the aim of protecting cultural resources. In this case, Sonoma Land Trust is not under any legal mandate to create a plan, but due to a number of known and unexpected cultural resources discoveries on the Little Black Mountain property t the necessity for a management tool that would aid in the preservation of these resources came to light.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitigated Negative Declaration
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LANGSAM BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT Prepared for: City of Sausalito COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 420 LITHO STREET SAUSALITO, CA 94965 PREPARED BY: LAMPHIER – GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO OAKLAND, CA 94606 FEBRUARY 2019 This page intentionally left blank PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT IS/MND TABLE OF CONTENTS page Introduction to this Document .................................................................................................. 1 Public Review............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Information ................................................................................................................... 2 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration .............................................................................................. 13 Proposed Findings ................................................................................................................... 18 Initial Study Checklist .............................................................................................................. 19 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................... 19 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory/Management Documents
    West Coast Region Consolidated Management Documents Nicole Capps/NOAA Management Plans, Terms of Designations, Regulations and Final Rules http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/westcoast.html February 2019 Table of Contents National Marine Sanctuaries Act ................................................... 1 Management Plans and Environmental Impact Statements ....... 1 Terms of Designation ..................................................................... 2 Olympic Coast NMS........................................................................................ 3 Cordell Bank NMS .......................................................................................... 7 Greater Farallones NMS ............................................................................... 11 Monterey Bay NMS ....................................................................................... 15 Channel Islands NMS ................................................................................... 20 Regulations ................................................................................... 25 Olympic Coast NMS...................................................................................... 26 Cordell Bank NMS ........................................................................................ 33 Greater Farallones NMS ............................................................................... 42 Monterey Bay NMS ....................................................................................... 64 Channel Islands NMS ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MARIN CITY LIBAO DEVELOPMENT Donohue Street, Marin City, California
    MARIN CITY LIBAO DEVELOPMENT Donohue Street, Marin City, California MASTER PLAN SUBMITTAL July 24, 2017 Marin City LIBAO Donohue Street Master Plan July 24, 2017 Table of Contents Page Project Team ii Project Summary 1 Project Description 2 Site Design 3 Roadway Design 3 Conceptual Grading and Drainage 4 House Design 5 Sustainable Design 6 Landscaping and Screening 7 Site Lighting 7 Public Benefits 7 Planning Code Compliance 8 a. Marin Countywide Plan b. Marin Countywide Development Code c. Marin City Community Plan Affordable Housing Plan 12 Appendix A: LIBAO Project Viewpoints 5 Pages Appendix B: Preliminary Tree Impact Analysis 4 pages Appendix C: Cultural Resources Evaluation 17 pages Appendix D: Preliminary Geological Study Report 24 pages Appendix E: Drainage Narrative 6 pages i PROJECT TEAM Building Owner: Civil Engineer: LIBAO Properties, LLC Atterbury and Associates 1426 Fillmore Street, Suite 213 16109 Healdsburg Avenue, Suite D San Francisco, CA 94115 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Contact: Vincent Xu Contact: Person: Matthew Macci 415.621.2370 707.433.0134 [email protected] [email protected] Architect: Environmental Consultant: Elevation Architects WRA, Inc. 439 Healdsburg Avenue 2169-G East Francisco Blvd. Healdsburg, CA 95448 San Rafael, CA 94901 Contact: Jonathan Pearlman Contact: Sean Avent 415.537.1125 x101 415.454.8868 x120 [email protected] [email protected] Landscape Architect: Archeological Consultant: Integrated Design Studio Archeological Resource Service 219 Shoreline Highway 607 Martin Avenue, Suite 101 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Contact: Jane Sedonean Contact: William Roop 415.381.9500 x701 707.586.2577 [email protected] [email protected] Geotechnical Engineer: RGH Consultants, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • California State Waters Map Series—Offshore of Bodega Head, California
    California State Waters Map Series—Offshore of Bodega Head, California By Samuel Y. Johnson, Peter Dartnell, Nadine E. Golden, Stephen R. Hartwell, Mercedes D. Erdey, H. Gary Greene, Guy R. Cochrane, Rikk G. Kvitek, Michael W. Manson, Charles A. Endris, Bryan E. Dieter, Janet T. Watt, Lisa M. Krigsman, Ray W. Sliter, Erik N. Lowe, and John L. Chin (Samuel Y. Johnson and Susan A. Cochran, editors) Pamphlet to accompany Open-File Report 2015–1140 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Suggested citation: Johnson, S.Y., Dartnell, P., Golden, N.E., Hartwell, S.R., Erdey, M.D., Greene, H.G., Cochrane, G.R., Kvitek, R.G., Manson, M.W., Endris, C.A., Dieter, B.E., Watt, J.T., Krigsman, L.M., Sliter, R.W., Lowe, E.N., and Chin, J.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 48/Thursday, March 12, 2015/Rules
    13078 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE I. Background opportunity to review any proposed rule and related environmental analyses. National Oceanic and Atmospheric A. Effective Date B. GFNMS Background Administration This rule postpones for 6 months the effective date for the discharge NOAA designated GFNMS in 1981 to 15 CFR Part 922 requirements in both expansion areas protect and preserve a unique and with regard to U.S. Coast Guard fragile ecological community, including [Docket No. 130405335–4999–02] activities. In the course of this rule the largest seabird colony in the contiguous United States and diverse making NOAA learned from Coast and abundant marine mammals. Guard that the discharge regulations had RIN 0648–BD18 GFNMS is located along and offshore the potential to impair the operations of California’s north-central coast, west of Expansion of Gulf of the Farallones Coast Guard vessels and air craft northern San Mateo, San Francisco, and Cordell Bank National Marine conducting law enforcement, search and Marin and southern Sonoma Counties. Sanctuaries, and Regulatory Changes rescue training and other statutorily GFNMS was previously composed of mandated activities in Gulf of the approximately 1,282 square miles (968 AGENCY: Office of National Marine Farallones and Cordell Bank national square nautical miles (sq. nmi)) of Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean marine sanctuaries. The USCG supports Service (NOS), National Oceanic and offshore waters extending out to and national marine sanctuary management around the Farallon Islands, nearshore Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), by providing routine surveillance and Department of Commerce (DOC).
    [Show full text]
  • Seabird and Marine Mammal Monitoring on Offshore Rock Islands in Sonoma County, California
    SEABIRD AND MARINE MAMMAL MONITORING ON OFFSHORE ROCK ISLANDS IN SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2013 PROTOCOL DOCUMENTATION The Stewards of Coast and Redwoods and California State Parks, Seabird Protection Network, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office California Coastal National Monument, Madrone Audubon Society February 2013 !!!! !!! !! !!! !!!!!!! February 2013 Page 1 of 53 WELCOME Thank you for your interest, dedication, and contribution towards the Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods (Stewards) Seabird Monitoring Program. The information you will gather is essential for sustaining these unique marine animals. In addition, your observations and actions are integral towards rebuilding a tenuous relationship between people and their marine habitat. Literature, art and culture have long reflected the connections that humans have with seabirds. Many of us first heard of the albatross in high school when we read Rime of the Ancient Mariner or we became enchanted with gulls through the book Jonathan Livingston Seagull. But the human seabird relationship began long before the advent of literature. Oral traditions tell us of the connection Californian Native Americans had with seabirds. The birds’ long migrations and seasonal appearances heralded change and elicited celebration. In southern California, Native American Chumash regalia consisted of skirts made of cormorant skins sewn together. California rock art from thousands of years ago depicts cormorants as a ceremonial creature to be honored. Historically seabirds served as indicators for peoples living on the coasts. Polynesians depended on these animals to find landmasses as they paddled vast oceans in canoes. Fishermen relied upon marine birds to find fish shoals and underwater banks. Hunters captured seabirds for food or to use as bait, while other hunting cultures used cormorants directly to attain food.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma Coast Doghole Port Project Research Design
    19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450 ■ 707.847.3437 ■ [email protected] ■ www.fortross.org Title: Sonoma Coast Doghole Port Project Research Design Author(s): Deborah Marx and Matthew Lawrence Source: Fort Ross Conservancy Library URL: http://www.fortross.org/lib.html Unless otherwise noted in the manuscript, each author maintains copyright of his or her written material. Fort Ross Conservancy (FRC) asks that you acknowledge FRC as the distributor of the content; if you use material from FRC’s online library, we request that you link directly to the URL provided. If you use the content offline, we ask that you credit the source as follows: “Digital content courtesy of Fort Ross Conservancy, www.fortross.org; author maintains copyright of his or her written material.” Also please consider becoming a member of Fort Ross Conservancy to ensure our work of promoting and protecting Fort Ross continues: http://www.fortross.org/join.htm. This online repository, funded by Renova Fort Ross Foundation, is brought to you by Fort Ross Conservancy, a 501(c)(3) and California State Park cooperating association. FRC’s mission is to connect people to the history and beauty of Fort Ross and Salt Point State Parks. Sonoma Coast Doghole Port Project Research Design Prepared by: Deborah Marx and Matthew Lawrence National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Maritime Heritage Program 175 Edward Foster Road Scituate, MA 02066 781.545.8026 Sonoma Coast Doghole Port Project Research Design Project Description The Sonoma Coast Doghole Port Project will undertake a survey of the submerged and terrestrial archaeological resources associated with northern California’s Redwood Coast lumber trade.
    [Show full text]