DOCSLIB.ORG

Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas 2 MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. PROGRAM FOR CONSIDERATION ON June 21 , 2005 A. National Wildlife Refuge Proposals I. Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas 2. Rappahannock River National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia 3. San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge, Texas 4. Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge, Texas . 5. Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey 6. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, Tennessee B. North American Wetland Conservation Fund Proposals Canadian Proposals United States Proposals Small Grants MEMORANDUM A. Approval of Minutes of Meeting March 16, 2005 MEMORANDUM "A" MINUTES OF MEETING March 16, 2005 The Minutes of the meeting of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission held on March 16, 2005, have been prepared for reading by the Commission. It is respectfully recommended that these minutes be formally approved. I I MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION COMMISSION HELD IN WASHINGTON ON March 16, 2005 The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission met on Wednesday, March 16, 2005, in the Main Interior Building, Secretary's Conference Room 5160. The meeting was called to order at 8 :44 a.m., by Assistant Secretary Craig Manson, acting as Chairman. The following Commission members were present: HON. CRAIG MANSON, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior HON. THAD COCHRAN, Senator from Mississippi HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Senator from Arkansas HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, Representative from Michigan HON. CURT WELDON, Representative from Pennsylvania MR. DAVE GAGNER, Special Assistant to the Chief, NRCS, Department of Agriculture MS. DIANE REGAS, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency Ex Officio members MR. ADAM TERRY, Representative Alexander's Washington D. C. Office MR VERNON BEVILL, Director, Game Bird Program, Texas Parks and Wildlife MR. STEVEN J. WEBER, Chief, Wildlife Division, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Secretary to the Commission: MR. A. ERIC ALVAREZ, Chief, Division of Realty, Fish and Wildlife Service Persons from the Congress of the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies who attended the meeting are listed below. MS. KATHY HURLD, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency MS. SITENA GREGURY, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency MR. ROBERT HOLIFIELD, Professional Staff Member, Senator Lincoln's Office MR. WEST HIGGINBUTHON, Professional Staff Member, Senator Cochran's Office MS. KA TIE MURTHA, Legislative Director, Congressman Dingell's Office MS. AMY LEEDECKE, Legislative Assistant, Congressman Weldon's Office MR. CARLOS A. de la PARRA, Minister, SEMARNAT, Embassy of Mexico MR. ALPHONSO ZEGBE, First Secretary and Deputy Representative, SEMARNA T, Embassy of Mexico MS. SHEILA TOOZE, Environmental Affairs Officer, Embassy of Canada, Washington, D. C. MR. MA TT HOGAN, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. WILLIAM F. HARTWIG, Assistant Director, National Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. PAUL SCHMIDT, Assistant Director, Migratory Birds and State Programs, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. ROBERT GRAYES, Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Coordinator, Division of Realty, Fish and Wildlife Service MS. CHRISTIAN LEE CHRISTOFFERS, Realty Specialist, Division of Realty, RS, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts MS. BRENDA JOHNSON-TURNER, Realty Specialist, Division of Realty, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. DOUG VANDEGRAFT, Chief Cartographer, Division of Realty, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. CARLTON CHEA THAM, Illustrator, Division of Realty, Fish and Wildlife Service MS. ANN GREEN, Secretary, Division of Realty, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. RIESLEY R. JONES, Regional Realty Chief, Division of Realty, R2, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico MS. SUE OLIVEIRA, Regional Realty Chief, Division of Realty, R4, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia MR. WALT QUIST, Regional Realty Chief, Division of Realty, R5 Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts MS. CHEREE PETERSON, Budget Analyst, Division of Budget, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. NICHOLAS THROCKMORTON, Public Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. DAVID SMITH, Council Coordinator, North American Wetlands Conservation Council, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. MICHAEL JOHNSON, Deputy Chief, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. CLINT RILEY, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. DAVID BUIE, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service MS. ELLEN MURPHY, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service MS. RODECIA MCKNIGHT, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service MR. TOM CASSIDY, The Nature Conservancy MR. SCOTT SUTHERLAND, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. MR. LEN UGARENKO, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Representatives who attended the meeting on behalf of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council portion of the program are listed below. I I I I COUNCIL EX OFFICIO MEMBERS MR. JOHN BERRY, Executive Director, The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D. C. MR. MARY POPE HUTSON, Land Trust Alliance, Washington D. C. MEETING PROCEEDINGS Assistant Secretary Manson called the meeting to order at 8:44 a.m. He mentioned that Secretary Norton was a keynote speaker at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference and she was sorry she could not be present at the meeting. Then he welcomed the commission members, new representative from the Environmental Protection Agency, state ex officio members, and others attending the meeting. Judge Manson then stated that since 1920, the Commission has overseen the establishment of 3 57 refuges in 49 States- over 12 million acres of marshes, prairie potholes, hardwood bottoms, and other havens for waterfowl, scattered from Maine to California and from Washington to Florida. He stated that the projects before the Commission for approval today reflect the continued growth in protecting and restoring wetland habitats under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act as well as through the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Judge Manson recognized the 15 th anniversary of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and reflected on both where we have been and where we are going. He stated that in the 15 years since its signing, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has invested over $640 million dollars in protecting and restoring wetland habitats across Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. He acknowledged the representatives from the Canadian and Mexican Embassies. He noted that this is the last week for Service Director Steve Williams and the Secretary has announced that Matt Hogan will be Acting Director. He proceeded to introduce the ex officio members for the North American Wetlands Conservation Council. Judge Manson then proceeded to Agenda Item A. AGENDA ITEM A Assistant Secretary Manson called for approval of the September 8, 2004, meeting minutes which were unanimously approved. He then called on Mr. Eric Alvarez, Secretary to the Commission, to present the three Migratory Bird Conservation Act proposals for consideration. With the aid of maps and video projections, Mr. Alvarez presented the acquisitions proposed in the program. Mr. Alvarez and Regional Senior Realty Officers responded to questions about the individual proposals. Each state ex officio provided affirmative comments about the proposals within their representative states. The Commission's action for each proposal is given below. NEW MBCC REFUGE AND PRICE APPROVAL BLACK BA YOU LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana­ Boundary approval was granted for a 5,854-acre area. Price approval was granted for the fee title acquisition of 615 acres in one ownership for the recommended price of $150,000 or $244 per acre. Mr. Alvarez commented that $891,000 is currently available from LWCF and will be combined with $150,000 from the MBCF to purchase this 615 acre tract. The MBCF contribution to the purchase price equates to $244 per acre. Rep. John Dingell asked about the term of a lease depicted on the refuge may. Sue Oliveira, Senior Realty Officer, Southeast Region, stated that this was a 99-year lease no-cost lease from the State which aids the Service in allowing recreation on the refuge. ADDITION AND PRICE APPROVAL SILVIO 0. CONTE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Pondicherry Division Coos County, New Hampshire-Addition of 825 acres in two ownerships was approved to expand the refuge and price approval was granted for the fee title acquisition of 516 acres in one ownership for the appraised value and recommended price of $304,000 or $589 per acre. Mr. Steven J. Webber, ex officio, stated that the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is working closely with refuge manager and participated in completion of hunting plan. Judge Manson asked about the donut holes shown on the map and asked Secretary Alvarez to discuss. Mr. Alvarez stated that we are seeking to acquire land in future or obtain management agreement from the current landowners. Rep. John Dingell asked about the status of acreage managed through an easement and owner of the easement. Walt Quist, Senior Realty Officer, Northeast Region, stated that the Audubon Society is the owner and we have begun the appraisal process and hope to bring before the Commission for approval at the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Climate Change Assessment of Tolay Creek Restoration, San Pablo Bay
    An Elevation and Climate Change Assessment of the Tolay Creek Restoration, San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge U. S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center Data Summary Report Prepared for the California Landscape Conservation Cooperative and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuges John Y. Takekawa, Karen M. Thorne, Kevin J. Buffington, and Chase M. Freeman Tolay Creek Restoration i An Elevation and Climate Change Assessment of the Tolay Creek Restoration, San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center Data Summary Report Prepared for California Landscape Conservation Cooperative and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuges John Y. Takekawa, Karen M. Thorne, Kevin J. Buffington, and Chase M. Freeman 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, San Francisco Bay Estuary Field Station, 505 Azuar Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 USA 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, 3020 State University Dr. East, Modoc Hall Suite 2007, Sacramento, CA 95819 USA For more information contact: John Y. Takekawa, PhD Karen M. Thorne, PhD U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center Western Ecological Research Center 505 Azuar Dr. 3020 State University Dr. East Vallejo, CA 94592 Modoc Hall, Suite 2007 Tel: (707) 562-2000 Sacramento, CA 95819 [email protected] Tel: (916)-278-9417 [email protected] Suggested Citation: Takekawa, J. Y., K. M. Thorne, K. J. Buffington, and C. M. Freeman. 2014. An elevation and climate change assessment of the Tolay Creek restoration, San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished Data Summary Report. U. S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Vallejo, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • Sears Point Geologic
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA- GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY THE RESOURCES AGENCY- MARY NICHOLS, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES JAMES F. DAVIS, STATE GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION- DARRYL YOUNG, DIRECTOR GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE Qhf Qof QTu Qhf Qhty Qhly Qhc Qof Tsvm SEARS POINT 7.5' QUADRANGLE Qhf Qhc Qhty Qhc Qof Qhf Qof af QTu Qhc 30 Qhc 20 Tpu Qhf SONOMA, SOLANO, AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA: A DIGITAL DATABASE QTu Qof Th 35 Qhly af Qhty Qof Qha VERSION 1.0 1 Qhty Tpu Tp? By 50 Tsvm 20 Qf Qhbm 1 2 1 2 1 Qof David L. Wagner , Carolyn E. Randolph-Loar , Stephen P. Bezore , Robert C. Witter , and James Allen Tp? af Tsvm Tpu? Qof 49 1 Th 43 Qha Digital Database Qof Qha alf Qhbm 70 Unit Explanation by 1 1 55 Qhbm Jason D. Little and Victoria D. Walker Tsvm Qof (See Knudsen and others (2000), for more information on Qf 2002 30 Quaternary units). Tpu 40 Tp? Qhbm af Artificial fill Qhty Tpu Qhay afbm af 1. California Geological Survey, 801 K st. MS 12-31, Sacramento, CA 95814 Qof Qhbm 30 Qhf af Tsvt 2. William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 1777 Botello Drive, Suite 262 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tsvm Tsvm alf Tsvm Tsvm alf Qhbm afbm Artificial fill placed over bay mud 80 Tsvt? Tsvm Qhbm Qls Qhay 80 Qls Tsvt Qhbm Qhbm Qhbm Artificial levee fill Qhf alf 35 45 Tsvt Tsvt Tsvm 40 Tsvm Tsvt Qhbm Qhf 20 Qls Qhbm Qha af Qhc Late Holocene to modern (<150 years) stream channel deposits in active, natural KJfm Franciscan Complex melange.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Coast Miwok and Their Neighbors, 1783-1840
    ETHNOHISTORY AND ETHNOGEOGRAPHY OF THE COAST MIWOK AND THEIR NEIGHBORS, 1783-1840 by Randall Milliken Technical Paper presented to: National Park Service, Golden Gate NRA Cultural Resources and Museum Management Division Building 101, Fort Mason San Francisco, California Prepared by: Archaeological/Historical Consultants 609 Aileen Street Oakland, California 94609 June 2009 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents the locations of Spanish-contact period Coast Miwok regional and local communities in lands of present Marin and Sonoma counties, California. Furthermore, it documents previously unavailable information about those Coast Miwok communities as they struggled to survive and reform themselves within the context of the Franciscan missions between 1783 and 1840. Supplementary information is provided about neighboring Southern Pomo-speaking communities to the north during the same time period. The staff of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) commissioned this study of the early native people of the Marin Peninsula upon recommendation from the report’s author. He had found that he was amassing a large amount of new information about the early Coast Miwoks at Mission Dolores in San Francisco while he was conducting a GGNRA-funded study of the Ramaytush Ohlone-speaking peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula. The original scope of work for this study called for the analysis and synthesis of sources identifying the Coast Miwok tribal communities that inhabited GGNRA parklands in Marin County prior to Spanish colonization. In addition, it asked for the documentation of cultural ties between those earlier native people and the members of the present-day community of Coast Miwok. The geographic area studied here reaches far to the north of GGNRA lands on the Marin Peninsula to encompass all lands inhabited by Coast Miwoks, as well as lands inhabited by Pomos who intermarried with them at Mission San Rafael.
    [Show full text]
  • Species and Community Profiles to Six Clutches of Eggs, Totaling About 861 Eggs During California Vernal Pool Tadpole Her Lifetime (Ahl 1991)
    3 Invertebrates their effects on this species are currently being investi- Franciscan Brine Shrimp gated (Maiss and Harding-Smith 1992). Artemia franciscana Kellogg Reproduction, Growth, and Development Invertebrates Brita C. Larsson Artemia franciscana has two types of reproduction, ovovi- General Information viparous and oviparous. In ovoviviparous reproduction, the fertilized eggs in a female can develop into free-swim- The Franciscan brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana (for- ming nauplii, which are set free by the mother. In ovipa- merly salina) (Bowen et al. 1985, Bowen and Sterling rous reproduction, however, the eggs, when reaching the 1978, Barigozzi 1974), is a small crustacean found in gastrula stage, become surrounded by a thick shell and highly saline ponds, lakes or sloughs that belong to the are deposited as cysts, which are in diapause (Sorgeloos order Anostraca (Eng et al. 1990, Pennak 1989). They 1980). In the Bay area, cysts production is generally are characterized by stalked compound eyes, an elongate highest during the fall and winter, when conditions for body, and no carapace. They have 11 pairs of swimming Artemia development are less favorable. The cysts may legs and the second antennae are uniramous, greatly en- persist for decades in a suspended state. Under natural larged and used as a clasping organ in males. The aver- conditions, the lifespan of Artemia is from 50 to 70 days. age length is 10 mm (Pennak 1989). Brine shrimp com- In the lab, females produced an average of 10 broods, monly swim with their ventral side upward. A. franciscana but the average under natural conditions may be closer lives in hypersaline water (70 to 200 ppt) (Maiss and to 3-4 broods, although this has not been confirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project
    Environmental Assessment For Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project September 2014 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Need 1.2 Public Participation 1.3 Organization of this EA 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Alternatives Considered 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Protected and Special-Status Species 3.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 3.1.2 Special Status Fish 3.2.3 Special Status Plants 3.2 Climate 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 4.1.2 Special Status Fish 4.1.3 Special Status Plants 4.2.1 Climate 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING 6.0 CUMULATIVE AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 6.1 Baseline Conditions for Cumulative Impacts Analysis 6.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 6.3 Resources Discussed and Geographic Study Areas 6.4 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis 7.0 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS 2 I. Executive Summary Ducks Unlimited requested funding through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Community-based Restoration Program (CRP) for restoration of a 960 acre site that is part of Sears Point Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Project . The Sonoma Land Trust (SLT), a non-profit organization, purchased the 2,327-acre properties collectively known as Sears Point in 2004 and 2005, and is the recipient of a number of grants for its restoration. In April of 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the STL and the California Department of Fish and Game published a final Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Impact Report (SPWWRP) / Environmental Impact Statement that assess the environmental impacts of restoration of Sears Point (State Clearinghouse #2007102037).
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Restoration Program
    ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS REPORT FOREWORD California’s Bay-Delta ecosystem is the largest estuary on the west coast of North America, draining almost 40,000 square miles via the state’s two largest rivers—the Sacramento and San Joaquin. The Bay-Delta ecosystem is home to hundreds of native fish, wildlife, and plant species, many of which are threatened or endangered. Since its inception in 1994 with the signing of the Bay-Delta Accord, the Ecosystem Restoration Program has been an unprecedented collaboration among local partners and governmental agencies to improve ecosystem processes and diverse habitats for species in the Bay-Delta watershed. Implemented by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the primary focus of the Ecosystem Restoration Program is to increase the extent of aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve ecological functions to support sustainable populations of native plant and animal species in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Some of the Ecosystem Restoration Program’s accomplishments over the last two decades are highlighted here. FALL 2014 Front cover: Sandhill Cranes on Staten Island, Bay-Delta Region. Photo by B. Burkett. Back cover: Butte Creek Canyon, Sacramento Valley Region. Photo by T. McReynolds. TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD ERP STRATEGIC GOALS REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE MULTI-REGIONAL ACTIONS REGIONAL HIGHLIGHTS Sacramento Valley Region Clear Creek Bay-Delta Region Baylands Cosumnes River San Joaquin Valley Region
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Water Bodies
    Attachment A: Detailed list of receiving water bodies within the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Control District boundaries under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control Boards One and Two This list of watercourses in the San Francisco Bay Area groups rivers, creeks, sloughs, etc. according to the bodies of water they flow into. Tributaries are listed under the watercourses they feed, sorted by the elevation of the confluence so that tributaries entering nearest the sea appear they first. Numbers in parentheses are Geographic Nantes Information System feature ids. Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County north of Bodega Head, listed from north to south:W The Gualala River and its tributaries • Gualala River (253221): o North Fork (229679) - flows from Mendocino County. o South Fork (235010): Big Pepperwood Creek (219227) - flows from Mendocino County. • Rockpile Creek (231751) - flows from Mendocino County. Buckeye Creek (220029): Little Creek (227239) North Fork Buckeye Crcck (229647): Osser Creek (230143) • Roy Creek (231987) • Soda Springs Creek (234853) Wheatfield Fork (237594): Fuller Creek (223983): • Sullivan Crcck (235693) Boyd Creek (219738) • North Fork Fuller Creek (229676) South Fork Fuller Creek (235005) Haupt Creek (225023) • Tobacco Creek (236406) Elk Creek (223108) • )`louse Creek (225688): Soda Spring Creek (234845) Allen Creek (218142) Peppeawood Creek (230514): • Danfield Creek (222007): • Cow Creek (221691) • Jim Creek (226237) • Grasshopper Creek (224470) Britain Creek (219851) • Cedar Creek (220760) • Wolf Creek (238086) • Tombs Crock (236448) • Marshall Creek (228139): • McKenzie Creek (228391) Northern Sonoma Coast Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County between the Gualala and Russian Rivers, numbered from north to south: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature Restoration Trust: the First Five Years an Exploratory Evaluation
    The Nature Restoration Trust: The First Five Years An Exploratory Evaluation Matthew Birnbaum, Ph.D, Conservation Science Officer - Evaluation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Nicole Cheslock, Independent Consultant Sarah Masengarb, Project Administrator, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation i Acknowledgements The investigators express their sincere gratitude to all of the grantees, their project partners, and Claire Thorp, Southwest Regional Director of NFWF, and Larry Goldzband, Manager of Charitable Contributions of PG&E for the generosity and collegiality in making this evaluation possible. We hope that the time that all have invested in participating in this investigation will be more than compensated by using the knowledge it has produced. While everyone is encouraged to adopt and apply anything of positive use presented in this report, the responsibility for the study’s findings remains the sole responsibility of the investigators. Readers seeking more information about this study are requested to contact Matthew Birnbaum by email at [email protected]. July 2006 Table of Contents. Page Executive Summary …………………………………………………………... i Chapter 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………. 1 Chapter 2. Methodology ……………………………………………………... 5 Chapter 3. Findings Project Portfolio ………………………………………………………. 7 Capacity Building Efforts …………………………………………….13 Collaborating Partners ………………………………………..13 Organizational Development …………………………………14 Local-Regional Alignment …………………………………...15 Sustainability …………………………………………………16 Educational Efforts
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Study Tolay Creek Ranch Sonoma County, California
    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY TOLAY CREEK RANCH SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Sonoma Land Trust 2300 County Center Drive #120A Santa Rosa, California 95403 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project No. SOZ0801 May 2o, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................1 1.2 LOCATION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.3 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................1 1.4 LAND USE AND HISTORY...............................................................................................2 1.5 REGULATORY CONTEXT................................................................................................3 1.5.1 Federal Endangered Species Act .............................................................................3 1.5.2 Clean Water Act ......................................................................................................4 1.5.3 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.............................................................5 1.5.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act.......................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Sonoma Creek Watershed Enhancement Plan
    DRAFT Sonoma Creek Watershed Enhancement Plan An owner’s manual for the residents & landowners of the Sonoma Creek Watershed. Prepared by: The Sonoma Resource Conservation District in conjunction with the people of the Sonoma Creek Watershed and collaboration with the Sonoma Ecology Center. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 8 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.............................................................. 9 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 10 PURPOSE OF THE SONOMA CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN....................................... 10 PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE PLAN ........................................................................................ 10 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ............................................................................................................. 11 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN ..................................................................................................... 14 WATERSHED GOALS ................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 2: WATERSHED DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY ............................................... 18 WATERSHED BOUNDARY OVERVIEW ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Resilience Assessment of the San Francisco Bay and Outer Coast Watersheds
    Coastal Resilience Assessment of the San Francisco Bay and Outer Coast Watersheds Suggested Citation: Crist, P.J., S. Veloz, J. Wood, R. White, M. Chesnutt, C. Scott, P. Cutter, and G. Dobson. Coastal Resilience Assessment of the San Francisco Bay and Outer Coast Watersheds. 2019. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER: This report represents a Regional Coastal Resilience Assessment that can be used to identify places on the landscape for resilience-building efforts and conservation actions through understanding coastal flood threats, the exposure of populations and infrastructure have to those threats, and the presence of suitable fish and wildlife habitat. As with all remotely sensed or publicly available data, all features should be verified with a site visit, as the locations of suitable landscapes or areas containing flood hazards and community assets are approximate. The data, maps, and analysis provided should be used only as a screening-level resource to support management decisions. This report should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for permitting or other legal purposes. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government, or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s partners. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation or its funding sources. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION DISCLAIMER: The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of NOAA or the Department of Commerce.
    [Show full text]