DOCSLIB.ORG

Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy Final Report – May 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy Final Report – May 2020 Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy Final Report – May 2020 Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy 1 May 2020 Acknowledgements Project Team Kendall Webster, Sonoma Land Trust Julian Meisler, Sonoma Land Trust Wendy Eliot, Sonoma Land Trust Jeremy Lowe, San Francisco Estuary Institute Ellen Plane, San Francisco Estuary Institute Scott Dusterhoff, San Francisco Estuary Institute Sam Veloz, Point Blue Conservation Science Michelle Orr, ESA James Gregory, ESA Stephanie Bishop, ESA Renee Spenst, Ducks Unlimited Steve Carroll, Ducks Unlimited Anne Morkill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Meg Marriott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Melissa Amato, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Science Advisory Panel Susan Haydon, Sonoma Water Carlos Diaz, Sonoma Water Larry Wyckoff, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Karen Taylor, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jessica Davenport, San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Peter Baye Stuart Seigel, San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Joy Albertson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service John Klochak, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jessica Pollitz, Sonoma Resource Conservation District Laurel Collins, Watershed Sciences Steve Lee, Sonoma Ecology Center Funded By San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resources Legacy Fund Dolby Family Fund Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy 2 May 2020 Table of Contents Chapter 1 .......................................................................................................................................................7 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................7 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................7 1.2 Purpose and Goals ...........................................................................................................................9 1.3 Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................................9 1.4 Stakeholder Outreach................................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Organization of This Report .......................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Habitats and Species..................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Environmental Conditions ............................................................................................................ 24 2.4 Current Land Uses ........................................................................................................................ 43 2.5 Future Environmental Conditions ................................................................................................ 48 Chapter 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 51 Scenario Development ........................................................................................................................... 51 3.1 Hydrologic Scenarios .................................................................................................................... 51 Chapter 4 .................................................................................................................................................... 52 Feasibility Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 52 4.1 Existing Resources and Landscape ............................................................................................... 52 4.2 Co-Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 52 4.3 Habitat .......................................................................................................................................... 53 4.4 Rail and Road ................................................................................................................................ 53 4.5 Sonoma Valley Airport .................................................................................................................. 55 4.6 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 55 4.7 Land Use ....................................................................................................................................... 56 4.8 Regulatory .................................................................................................................................... 57 4.9 Public Access ................................................................................................................................. 58 4.10 Feasibility Considerations by Parcel ........................................................................................... 61 4.11 Uncertainties .............................................................................................................................. 63 Chapter 5 .................................................................................................................................................... 65 Alternative Strategy Development ......................................................................................................... 65 5.1 Alternative 0: No Restoration (Figure 5.1) ................................................................................... 66 5.2 Alternative 1: Maximum Tidal (Figure 5.2) ................................................................................... 69 Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy 3 May 2020 5.3 Alternative 2: Avoid Railroad (Figure 5.3) .................................................................................... 73 5.4 Alternative 3: Enhanced Maximum Tidal (Figure 5.4) .................................................................. 76 Chapter 6 .................................................................................................................................................... 82 Alternative Strategies Feasibility Analysis .............................................................................................. 82 6.1 Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 82 6.2 Availability of Properties .............................................................................................................. 86 6.3 Constructability ............................................................................................................................ 87 6.4 Sequencing ................................................................................................................................... 91 6.5 Implications for Public Access ...................................................................................................... 92 6.6 Infrastructure Considerations ...................................................................................................... 93 6.7 Cost of Implementation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.8 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................................... 103 6.9 Groundwater .............................................................................................................................. 110 6.10 Feasibility Summary.................................................................................................................. 110 6.11 Opportunities to Accelerate Restoration ................................................................................. 111 Chapter 7 .................................................................................................................................................. 113 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 113 Chapter 8 .................................................................................................................................................. 116 References ............................................................................................................................................ 116 Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy 4 May 2020 Figures Figure 1.1. The planning area in context. Figure 1.2. Planning area and surrounding areas. Figure 2.1. Site Names used in this report, adapted from the Lower Sonoma Creek Flood Management and Ecosystem Enhancement Plan (ESA 2012). Figure 2.2. Habitat types. Figure 2.3. Upper boundary approach
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • North Sonoma Mountain Regional Park and Open Space Preserve
    North Sonoma Mountain Regional Park & Open Space Preserve To Santa Rosa Park Entrance etavirP ytreporP 1000 ntain Roa d u d oa o To Glen Ellen ate R BAY AREA RIDGE TRAIL PARKING DOGS ALLOWED riv M P ON LEASH a MULTIUSE FIRE ROAD Sonom FEE STATION NO DOGS North Sonoma Mountain MULTIUSE TRAIL TRAILHEAD North Sonoma HIKING/EQUESTRIAN TRAIL 900 Mountain Park Regional Park and RESTROOMS NO POTABLE WATER Trailhead HIKING ONLY TRAIL AVAILABLE IN PARK Open Space Preserve ADA-ACCESSIBLE TRAIL EQUESTRIAN STAGING ROAD PICNIC AREA 0.1 M a UTILITY LINES PARKING FOR ADA- Private t 1200 ranch Redwood an BRIDGE ACCESSIBLE TRAIL Grove Property z 1300 1000 noissimsnarT eniL a Picnic s 0.1 1400 VISTA POINT DISTANCE IN MILES ytreporP etavirP ytreporP Area C 1100 r 1500 0.13 ee GATE 1200 S k Private Property o 1600 u SONOMA COUNTY 1300 t h REGIONAL PARK *TRAILS ARE OPEN TO HIKERS, F 1700 BICYCLISTS AND EQUESTRIANS 1400 o NO THROUGH ACCESS FOR BIKES STATE PARK l r i k 1.8 EXCEPT AS NOTED a 1800 r T M a om on S h rt e a o N 1900 e m R U b t r re 0.65 i l l T a nta d a 1720' u in o g n M e Bennett 2000 z Tr a Valley a 1500 1600 0.74 il s Overlook C r 1900 e Private Property e k Private Property il 2000 ra T 1.05 s Jack London Sonoma Mountain contains some of the richest ld e State Historic Park views of the Santa Rosa Plain and surrounding peaks, biodiversity in Sonoma County.
    [Show full text]
  • Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area Directions to Units
    Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area Directions to Units It is highly recommended that you print out a map of the wildlife area prior to accessing. Huichica Creek (1,091 acres) From Hwy 12/121 turn south on Duhig Road and proceed approximately 2 miles then turn left on Las Amigas Road. Follow Las Amigas Road east until it connects with Buchli Station Road then turn right (south) on Buchli Station Road and follow the road through the vineyard areas until you cross the rail road tracks adjacent to CDFW parking lot. All visitors are encouraged to walk existing trails, levees and service roads south of the railroad tracks. Napa River (8,200 acres) The southern ponds (Ponds 1 and 1A) can be viewed from State Hwy. 37 which is located just north of San Pablo Bay. Where the Mare Island Bridge crosses the Napa River travel west 3.5 miles to a parking lot and locked gate on the north side of the highway with an opening provided for pedestrian access. The pedestrian access point in the gate allows foot traffic north to the large metal power transmission towers that bisect the pond. Within Ponds 1 and 1A, beyond the power towers to the north is a zone closed to hunting and fishing. The remaining portion of the Napa River Unit is to the north of these ponds, between South Slogh and Napa Slough (refer to area map), and is accessible only by boat. Ringstrom Bay (396 acres) The unit can be viewed from Ramal Road. From State Hwy. 12/121 take Ramal Road south.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Final Report
    Draft Saddle Mountain Open Space Preserve Management Plan Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District 747 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Prepared by: Prunuske Chatham, Inc. 400 Morris St., Suite G Sebastopol, CA 95472 March 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District March 2019 Saddle Mountain Open Space Preserve Management Plan Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Page 1 Project Information ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Requirements .................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Public and Agency Review ................................................................................................. 3 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Project Location and Setting ......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 4
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma Mountain Journal 2014
    Volume 14, no. 1 December 2014 This year’s Journal highlights the Sonoma Developmental Center at a Crossroads Sonoma Developmental Center— John McCaull, Sonoma Land Trust its past, present and future. How often does a place inspire the Report recommends a course us to slow down? Venturing off that threatens closure and possible Inside Highway 12 near Glen Ellen, the sale of the facility. Sonoma Developmental Center— Dreaming Large or SDC—has that time-out-of-time Surplus Property Shifting Visions character. Green lawns, ball fields If SDC is sold as “surplus” property, and shady spots beckon us to the loss to our community will be Grazing for Biodiversity take a walk, or have a picnic. The profound. What will happen to forests on Sonoma Mountain can the current 400+ residents and SMP Successes be explored on trails linked to Jack others who need its facilities? If the London State Park. The Valley floor’s property is sold for development or Mountain Birdlife oak woodlands and grasslands vineyards, what will become of the are accessible through Sonoma wildlife and open space? SDC is the Protected Areas Map Valley Regional Park. Because the heart of the Sonoma Valley Wildlife property is state-owned, it’s easy to Corridor, a crucial wildlife passage The first peoples of southern assume that SDC is protected and for the entire North Bay. The property Sonoma county, the Coast not facing any threats of imminent has an abundant water supply, Miwok, placed oona-pa’is change. But in reality, the future of tremendous habitat value, and the — Sonoma Mountain — at the SDC is at a crossroads.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning
    Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Community Meeting Presentation April, 2019 Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Scope Location: 9.5 miles of mainstem Sonoma Creek from Adobe Canyon to Madrone Road Goal: Create a Restoration Vision and design a demonstration project to • Improve Steelhead Habitat • Address Streamside Landowner Needs • Improve Hydrology and Water Quality • Address Bank Erosion Issues • Improve Riparian Vegetation Timeline: January 2019 – July 2020 Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Landowner Survey: https://sonomaecologycenter.org/creeksurvey/ • Mailed to 280 creekside property owners • 20% response rate Responses to: Which is your biggest concern for Sonoma Creek? (check all that apply) Flooding Bank Erosion Habitat for 1 Steelhead Summer Flows Mosquitos Debris or Litter 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Goal: Improve Steelhead Habitat • Improve Steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in Sonoma Creek • Improve high flow refuge for Steelhead Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Goal: Address Streamside Landowner Needs • Reduce risk of property damage from erosion or flooding along Sonoma Creek • Cultivate land owner stewardship of streamside properties Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Goal: Improve Hydrology and Water Quality • Restore natural hydrology in Sonoma Creek (Slow it, Spread it, Sink it) • Improve Sonoma Creek water quality (temp, contaminants, pathogens, fine sediment) Upper
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA FISH and GAME ' CONSERVATION of WILDLIFE THROUGH EDUCATION'
    REPRINT FROM CALIFORNIA FISH and GAME ' CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE THROUGH EDUCATION' . VOLUME 50 APRIL 1964 NUMBER 2 ANNUAL ABUNDANCE OF YOUNG STRIPED BASS, ROCCUS SAXATILIS, IN THE SACRAMENTO- SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA' HAROLD K. CHADWICK Inland Fisheries Branch California Department of Fish and Game INTRODUCTION A reliable index of striped bass spawning success would serve two important management purposes. First, it would enable us to determine if recruitment is directly related to spawning success. If it is, we could predict important changes in the fishery three years in advance. Second, it would give insight into environmental factors responsible for good and poor year-classes. Besides increasing our understanding of the bass population, this knowledge might be used to improve recruit- ment by modifying water development plans in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta under the State Water Resources Development System. Fyke net samples provided the earliest information on young bass distribution (Hatton, 1940). They were not promising for estimating abundance, and subsequent sampling of eggs and larvae with plankton nets also had important limitations (Calhoun and Woodhull, 1948; Cal- houn, Woodhull, and Johnson, 1950). An exploratory survey with tow nets in the early summer of 1947 (Calhoun and Woodhull, 1948) found bass about an inch long dis- tributed throughout the lower Sacramento-San Joaquin River system except in the Sacramento River above Isleton. This suggested the best index of spawning success would be the abundance of bass about an inch long, measured by tow netting. In 1948 and 1949 extensive tow net surveys were made to measure the relative abundance of young bass in the Delta between Rio Vista and Pittsburg (Erkkila et al., 1950).
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Recipients of 5 Star Grant Program (PDF)
    2010 Five Star Recipients Alabama Project Title: Tapawingo Springs Wetlands Restoration (AL) Organization: Freshwater Land Trust Award Amount: $14,980 Project Location: The project is located at the foot of Sand mountain along Tapawingo Road in northeastern Jefferson County, Alabama. Project Description: Conduct riparian wetland habitat restoration of abandoned residential property concentrating on re-establishing wetland hydrology and native species and eradication of invasive species. Project Title: Village Creek Trail and Restoration (AL) Organization: Freshwater Land Trust Award Amount: $20,620 Project Location: Birmingham and Jefferson Counties Project Description: Construct and maintain a trail system along the Village Creek head waters. Project will include invasive plant removal, wetland enhancement, and bioswale construction. California Project Title: Audubon Bobcat Ranch Oak Woodland Corridor (CA) - III Organization: National Audubon Society Award Amount: $40,000 Project Location: Putah Creek Watershed, Yolo County Project Description: Create an ecological connection between the Dry Creek tributaries and the main channel of Putah Creek in Yolo County. Project will create a wild-way managed by landowners. Project Title: Cooley Landing Restoration and Education (CA) Organization: City of East Palo Alto Award Amount: $40,000 Project Location: East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, San Mateo County Project Description: Restore nine acres of upland habitat for endangered clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse. Project will create a new passive recreation park and environmental and history education center. Project Title: Cresta Riparian Habitat Enhancement and Education (CA) Organization: Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Award Amount: $20,000 Project Location: Project is located along Porter Creek in the Mayacamas Mountains of northeastern Sonoma County.
    [Show full text]
  • A Homestead Era History of Nunns' Canyon and Calabazas Creek
    A Homestead Era History of Nunns’ Canyon and Calabazas Creek Preserve c.1850 - 1910 Glen Ellen, California BASELINE CONSULTING contents Homesteads, Roads, & Land Ownership 3 Historical Narrative 4 Introduction Before 1850 American Era Timeline 18 Selected Maps & documents 24 Sources 29 Notes on the Approach 32 and focus of this study Note: Historically, what is now Calabazas Creek Preserve was referred to as Nunns’ Can- yon. These designations are used interchangeably in this report and refer to all former public lands of the United States within the boundaries of the Preserve. Copyright © 013, Baseline Consulting. Researched, compiled and presented by Arthur Dawson. Right to reproduce granted to Lauren Johannessen and the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Special thanks to Lauren Johannessen, who initially commissioned this effort.Also to the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District for additional support. DISCLAIMER: While every effort has been made to be accurate, further research may bring to light additional information. Baseline Consulting guarantees that the sources used for this history contain the stated facts; however some speculation was involved in developing this report. For inquiries about this report, services offered by Baseline Consulting, or permission to reproduce this report in whole or in part, contact: BASELINE CONSULTING ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR LANDOWNERS & RESOURCE MANAGERS P.O. Box 207 13750 Arnold Drive, Suite 3 Glen Ellen, California 95442 (707) 996-9967 (707) 509-9427 [email protected] www.baselineconsult.com A HOMESTEAD ERA HISTORY OF NUNNS’ CANYON & CALABAZAS CREEK PRESERVE Baseline Consulting A HOMESTEAD ERA HISTORY OF NUNNS’ CANYON & CALABAZAS CREEK PRESERVE Baseline Consulting 3 HISTORICAL narratiVE Introduction Time has erased much of the story of Nunns’ Canyon homesteaders.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Abundance
    DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE IN RELATION TO HABITAT AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND NEST SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF CALIFORNIA BLACK RAIL (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY FINAL REPORT To the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service March 2002 Hildie Spautz* and Nadav Nur, PhD Point Reyes Bird Observatory 4990 Shoreline Highway Stinson Beach, CA 94970 *corresponding author contact: [email protected] PRBO Black Rail Report to FWS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We conducted surveys for California Black Rails (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) at 34 tidal salt marshes in San Pablo Bay, Suisun Bay, northern San Francisco Bay and western Marin County in 2000 and 2001 with the aims of: 1) providing the best current information on distribution and abundance of Black Rails, marsh by marsh, and total population size per bay region, 2) identifying vegetation, habitat, and landscape features that predict the presence of black rails, and 3) summarizing information on nesting and nest site characteristics. Abundance indices were higher at 8 marshes than in 1996 and earlier surveys, and lower in 4 others; with two showing no overall change. Of 13 marshes surveyed for the first time, Black Rails were detected at 7 sites. The absolute density calculated using the program DISTANCE averaged 2.63 (± 1.05 [S.E.]) birds/ha in San Pablo Bay and 3.44 birds/ha (± 0.73) in Suisun Bay. At each survey point we collected information on vegetation cover and structure, and calculated landscape metrics using ArcView GIS. We analyzed Black Rail presence or absence by first analyzing differences among marshes, and then by analyzing factors that influence detection of rails at each survey station.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
    The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Management Board Bay Area Audubon Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Institute The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Bay Planning Coalition California State Coastal Conservancy Celebrating years of partnerships protecting wetlands and wildlife California Department of Fish and Game California Resources Agency 15 Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Ducks Unlimited National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company PRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Estuary Partnership Save the Bay Sierra Club U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Wildlife Conservation Board 735B Center Boulevard, Fairfax, CA 94930 415-259-0334 www.sfbayjv.org www.yourwetlands.org The San Francisco Bay Area is breathtaking! As Chair of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, I would like to personally thank our partners It’s no wonder so many of us live here – 7.15 million of us, according to the 2010 census. Each one of us has our for their ongoing support of our critical mission and goals in honor of our 15 year anniversary. own mental image of “the Bay Area.” For some it may be the place where the Pacific Ocean flows beneath the This retrospective is a testament to the significant achievements we’ve made together. I look Golden Gate Bridge, for others it might be somewhere along the East Bay Regional Parks shoreline, or from one forward to the next 15 years of even bigger wins for wetland habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy - Executive Summary May 2020 Contact: [email protected]
    Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy - Executive Summary May 2020 Contact: [email protected] Introduction Prior to the 1850s, the Sonoma Creek baylands were a vast mosaic of tidal and seasonal wetlands. Fresh water, sediment, and nutrients were delivered from the upper watershed to mix with the tidal waters of San Pablo Bay, creating a small estuary teeming with life. Floods along Sonoma Creek and Schell Creek spread out in an alluvial fan in the region south of present-day State Route (SR) 121, creating distributary channels and depositing sediment. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Sonoma Creek baylands, along with 80 percent of wetlands around San Francisco Bay, were diked and drained for agriculture and other purposes. This created discrete parcels and simplified creek networks. Flow of water and sediment across the alluvial fans was blocked and confined to the creek channels. As a result, portions of Schellville and surrounding areas in southern Sonoma County are frequently flooded during relatively small winter storm events, when flows overtop the banks of Sonoma and Schell creeks, resulting in road closures at the junction of SR 121 and SR 12 that affect travel and public safety. Much of what used to be tidal marsh has been transformed into other habitat types including diked agricultural fields. Narrow strips of tidal marsh have developed adjacent to the tidal slough channels that run between the diked agricultural baylands. Development within the Sonoma Creek baylands continues despite the chronic flooding that is caused by filling and fragmentation of the floodplain. Flooding, and loss of habitat, species, and ecological function will increase with climate change-driven sea level rise and increased storm intensity.
    [Show full text]