DOCSLIB.ORG

Concord Naval Weapons Station Epa Id

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Concord Naval Weapons Station Epa Id EPA/ROD/R2005090001493 2005 EPA Superfund Record of Decision: CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EPA ID: CA7170024528 OU 07 CONCORD, CA 09/30/2005 Final Record of Decision Inland Area Site 17 Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord Concord, California GSA.0113.0012 Order N62474-03-F-4032; GSA-10F-0076K June 10, 2005 (Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team West, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Daly City, California U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 175 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California Department of Toxic Substances Control 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, California San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, California Prepared by Tetra Tech EM Inc. 135 Main Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 543-4880 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROGRAM MANAGEMEN1 OFFICE WEST 1455 FRAZEE AD, SUITE 900 SAN DIEGO, CA 92’ 08-4310 5090 Ser BPMOW.JTD/0361 April 17, 2006 Mr. Phillip A. Ramsey US. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco. CA 94105 Dear Mr. Ramsey: The Final Record of Decision (ROD), Inland Area Site 17, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord, California, of June 10, ;!005, was fully executed on February 1, 2006. Copies of the ROD were provided to regulatory agencies shortly after final signatures. TMs letter is provided to you to document the transmittal of the ROD following its execution. Should you have any questions concerning this document or if you need additional information, please contact me at (619) 532-0975. By direction of the Director 5090 Ser BPMOW.JTD10361 April 17, 2006 copy to: - Mr. Jim Pinasco Mr. Alan Friedman (CD and hardcopy) California Department of Toxic Substances California Regional Water Quality Control Board Control San Francisco Bay Region Region 1 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 8800 Cal Center Drive Oakland, CA 94612 Sacramento, CA 95826 Mr. Frank Gray (CD and hardcopy) Ms. Joanna Canepa California Department of Fish and Game Tetr8eTech EM1 1700 K Street, Suite 250 6100 21gthStreet SW, Suite 550 Sacramento, CA 95814 -Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Ms. Margaret Wallerstein Ms. Mary Lou Williams Code N45WS Res1:oration Advisory Board NWS Seal Beach 1015 San Miguel Road 800 Seal Beach Boulevard, Building 110 Concord, CA 94518-21 10 Seal Beach, CA 90740-5000 Ms. Lisa Anich Mr. Kevin Cornish 4495 River Ash Ct 11 Ruth Court Concord, CA 94521 Lafayette, CA 94549 Mr. Gregory Glaser Mr. David Griffith 202 Sonora Avenue 4002: Hiller Lane Danville, CA 94526 Martinez, CA 94553 Ms. Jessica Hamburger (CD only) Mr. Mario Menesini 5552 Clayton Rd., 2406 Cascade Drive Concord CA 94521-4158 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Mr. John Montagh Mr. Igor Skaredoff (CD only) 1950 Parkside Drive M/S 1B 41 1 Isabel Drive Concord, CA 94519 Martinez, CA 94553 Ms. Sonce de Vries Mr. laly Jolish Floor SFD-8-6 Floor ORC-3 75 Hawthorne Street 75 Hiwthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco, CA. 94105 Ms. Laurie Sullivan Ms. Denise Klimas Floor SFD-8 Sacramento Regional Office (NOAA) 75 Hawthorne Street 8800 Cal Center Drive San Francisco, CA 94105 Sacramento, CA 95826 Ms. Carolyn Marn 2800 Cottage Way Room W2605 Sacramento, CA. 95825 2 CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...................................................................................... iii 1.0 DECLARATION FOR NO ACTION AT NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SBD CONCORD, INLAND AREA SITE 17 ..............................................................................1 1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION.......................................................................................1 1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE ........................................................................1 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY: NO ACTION............................................1 1.4 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS.................................................................................2 2.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SBD CONCORD, INLAND AREA SITE 17....................................................................................................3 2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION...............................................................3 2.1.1 Physiography and Topography ....................................................................3 2.1.2 Local Geology and Groundwater Beneficial Use Determination................3 2.1.3 Local Hydrology ..........................................................................................7 2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ........................................................8 2.2.1 Background..................................................................................................8 2.2.2 Environmental Investigations at Naval Weapons Station SBD Concord.............................................................................................12 2.2.3 IRP History for Site 17 ..............................................................................13 2.2.4 Estimation of Ambient Concentrations of Metals in Inland Area Soils........................................................................................15 2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ........................................................16 2.4 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ..........................................................................................18 2.4.1 Results of Soil Investigations.....................................................................19 2.4.2 Results of Sediment Investigations............................................................24 2.4.3 Results of Groundwater Investigations......................................................24 2.5 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES..............................24 2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS........................................................................................27 2.6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment................................................................28 2.6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment ......................................................................34 2.6.3 Conclusions and Risk Management Evaluation ........................................35 2.7 DESCRIPTION OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE...........................................................37 2.8 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.........................................................38 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................39 Appendix A RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR INLAND AREA SITE 17 B HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES Final ROD Inland Area Site 17 i FIGURES 1 SITE LOCATION MAP......................................................................................................4 2 INLAND AREA RI SITES..................................................................................................5 3 SITE 17 – BUILDING IA-24 SITE FEATURES................................................................6 4 SITE 17 – SITE INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLING LOCATIONS ...............................................................................................10 5 ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS DETECTED DURING THE RI AT SITE 17 IN SOIL .............................................................................................................................21 6 INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS DETECTED DURING THE RI AT SITE 17 IN SOIL .............................................................................................................................23 7 CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER AT SITE 17 ....................................26 8 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT..........30 TABLES 1 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES .................................................14 2 AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SOILS FOR INLAND AREA SITE 17 ..................................................................................................................17 3 ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOILS AT SITE 17...............................20 4 INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOILS AT SITE 17...........................22 5 ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT AT SITE 17...................................................................................................25 6 ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER AT SITE 17 .......................................................................................27 7 RESULTS OF THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SITE 17 ..............33 Final ROD Inland Area Site 17 ii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS µg/L Micrograms per liter ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria BRAC Base realignment and closure BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene CCCHSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department CCWD Contra Cost Water District CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act COEC Chemical of ecological concern COPC Chemical of potential concern CSM Conceptual site model DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EOD Explosive ordnance disposal EPC Exposure point concentration ERA Ecological risk assessment ER-M Effects range-median FFA Federal Facility Agreement FS Feasibility study HHRA Human health risk assessment HI Hazard index IAS Initial assessment study IRP
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]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(2) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Deverel, Steven J Leighton, David A Publication Date 2010 DOI https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2010v8iss2art1 Supplemental Material https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw#supplemental License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California august 2010 Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Steven J. Deverel1 and David A. Leighton Hydrofocus, Inc., 2827 Spafford Street, Davis, CA 95618 AbStRACt will range from a few cm to over 1.3 m (4.3 ft). The largest elevation declines will occur in the central To estimate and understand recent subsidence, we col- Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. From 2007 to 2050, lected elevation and soils data on Bacon and Sherman the most probable estimated increase in volume below islands in 2006 at locations of previous elevation sea level is 346,956,000 million m3 (281,300 ac-ft). measurements. Measured subsidence rates on Sherman Consequences of this continuing subsidence include Island from 1988 to 2006 averaged 1.23 cm year-1 increased drainage loads of water quality constitu- (0.5 in yr-1) and ranged from 0.7 to 1.7 cm year-1 (0.3 ents of concern, seepage onto islands, and decreased to 0.7 in yr-1). Subsidence rates on Bacon Island from arability.
    [Show full text]
  • California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E
    California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E. Longley, ScD, P.E., Chair Linda S. Adams Arnold 11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670-6114 Secretary for Phone (916) 464-3291 • FAX (916) 464-4645 Schwarzenegger Environmental http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley Governor Protection 18 August 2008 See attached distribution list DELTA REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM STAKEHOLDER PANEL KICKOFF MEETING This is an invitation to participate as a stakeholder in the development and implementation of a critical and important project, the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (Delta RMP), being developed jointly by the State and Regional Boards’ Bay-Delta Team. The Delta RMP stakeholder panel kickoff meeting is scheduled for 30 September 2008 and we respectfully request your attendance at the meeting. The meeting will consist of two sessions (see attached draft agenda). During the first session, Water Board staff will provide an overview of the impetus for the Delta RMP and initial planning efforts. The purpose of the first session is to gain management-level stakeholder input and, if possible, endorsement of and commitment to the Delta RMP planning effort. We request that you and your designee attend the first session together. The second session will be a working meeting for the designees to discuss the details of how to proceed with the planning process. A brief discussion of the purpose and background of the project is provided below. In December 2007 and January 2008 the State Water Board, Central Valley Regional Water Board, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board (collectively Water Boards) adopted a joint resolution (2007-0079, R5-2007-0161, and R2-2008-0009, respectively) committing the Water Boards to take several actions to protect beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta).
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Update to the Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analyses and Development of Seismic Design Ground Motions
    FINAL REPORT 2013 UPDATE TO THE SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSES AND DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Stanford University Stanford, California 28 April 2014 Patricia Thomas, Ivan Wong, and Judith Zachariasen URS Corporation Seismic Hazards Group 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, California 94612 Robert Darragh and Walt Silva Pacific Engineering & Analysis 856 Seaview Dr. El Cerrito, CA 94530 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ES-1 Section 1 ONE Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Scope of Work .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Acknowledgments.................................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 TWO Seismic Hazard Analyses Methodologies .................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis .................................................... 2-1 2.2 Seismic Source Characterization ............................................................. 2-2 2.2.1 Source Geometry ......................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Fault Recurrence .......................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Ground Motion Characterization ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network
    Innovation in Monitoring: The U.S. Geological Survey Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 121˚45' 121˚30' 121˚15' installed the first gage to measure the flow 38˚ of water into California’s Sacramento–San 30' Sacramento Channel Joaquin River Delta (figs. 1, 2) from the River FPT Freeport Sacramento Sacramento- Sacramento River in the late 1800s. Today, r San Joaquin ve San Yolo Bypass i Delta s R a network of 35 hydro-acoustic meters Francisco ne m u s measure flow throughout the delta. This San o Francisco Sutter/ C region is a critical part of California’s Bay Hood Steamboat freshwater supply and conveyance system. San Elk Slough corridor Joaquin Sacramento Deep Water Ship With the data provided by this flow-station River SUT Delta network—sampled every 15 minutes and Sutter transfer Slough HWB flow updated to the web every hour—state Slough SSS SDC and federal water managers make daily 38˚ Creek DWS DLC Mokelumne 15' GES decisions about how much freshwater LIB Walnut Dry can be pumped for human use, at which RYI GSS Grove Steamboat NMR locations, and when. Fish and wildlife Yolo Bypass flow SMR River R scientists, working with water managers, ive r Mokelumne Rio Vista SRV River system also use this information to protect fish exchange Threemile Slough Lodi species affected by pumping and loss of MOK SDI TSL habitat. The data are also used to help LPS to en determine the success or failure of efforts Sacram OSJ SJJ FAL PRI to restore ecosystem processes in what has MAL San Joaquin been called the “most managed and highly Pittsburg ORO River/central delta exchanges altered” watershed in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Duck Slough Farm - Clarksburg Area North of Ryer Island - Solano County, Ca
    PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTS ¥ LOCATION OVERVIEW SEC County Road 17 & County Road 95A (county maintained paved roads) Woodland, CA 95776 Ð County of Yolo PRICE REDUCED! PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTS • Sacramento Delta Area Farmland • High Value Intrinsic Farm Resources • Prime Silty Clay Loam Soils • Reliable Surface Irrigation Water • Backed by No. Delta Water Agency • RD 999 – Strong Levees & Good Drainage • Active Williamson Act Contract – Low Taxes • Offered at $2,900,000 DUCK SLOUGH FARM - CLARKSBURG AREA NORTH OF RYER ISLAND - SOLANO COUNTY, CA JIM WIRTH BRE# 00912648 The information in this document was obtained from sources we deem reliable; however, Tel:916.677.8142 no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, is made as to the accuracy of the [email protected] information contained herein. NE Quadrant - I-5 & West St., Woodland, CA 95695 NEDuck Quadrant Slough - I-5Farm & W –est Clarksburg St., Woodland, Area CA 95695 DEMOGRAPHICSLocation Details MAP DEMOGRAPHICS MAP SITE 5 Miles 15 Miles 30 Miles Description: DuckTotal Population Slough Farm is an open irrigated row crop farm having prime soils with 569,877 Miles 15184,440 Miles 1,308,56630 Miles Population Density 890 261 463 surfaceTotal Population irrigation water resources utilized in the production of alfalfa hay and 69,877 184,440 1,308,566 Median Age 35.4 31.6 33.6 processingPopulation Density tomatoes. 890 261 463 Median Age (Male) 33.8 30.7 32.7 Median Age 35.4 SITE 31.6 33.6 Median Age (Female) 37.0 32.4 34.6 Location:Median Age (Male) 33.8 30.7 32.7 Total Households 24,718 64,661 477,257 TheMedian farm Age is (Female) situated in the Sacramento Delta region of Solano County and just 37.0 32.4 34.6 # of Persons Per HH 2.8 2.9 2.7 NorthTotal Households of Ryer Island and West of Sutter Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Intelligence in Emergency Management 1
    Collective Intelligence in Emergency Management 1 Running head: COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: SOCIAL MEDIA’S ROLE IN THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER Collective Intelligence in Emergency Management: Social Media's Emerging Role in the Emergency Operations Center Eric D. Nickel Novato Fire District Novato, California Collective Intelligence in Emergency Management 2 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another. Signed: __________________________________ Collective Intelligence in Emergency Management 3 ABSTRACT The problem was that the Novato Fire District did not utilize social media technology to gather or share intelligence during Emergency Operations Center activations. The purpose of this applied research project was to recommend a social media usage program for the Novato Fire District’s Emergency Operations Center. Descriptive methodology, literature review, two personal communications and a statistical sampling of fire agencies utilizing facebook supported the research questions. The research questions included what were collective intelligence and social media; how was social media used by individuals and organizations during events and disasters; how many fire agencies maintained a facebook page and used them to distribute emergency information; and which emergency management social media programs should be recommended for the Novato Fire District’s Emergency Operations Center. The procedures included two data collection experiments, one a statistical sampling of United States fire agencies using facebook, to support the literature review and research questions. This research is one of the first Executive Fire Officer Applied Research Projects that addressed this emerging subject.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Suisun Bay Genetics Comparison Study
    Technical Report in Fulfillment of Agreement No. A07-0008 between AECOM Technical Services Inc. and the Regents of the University of California, and Agreement No. 4600011293 between Department of Water Resources and the Regents of the University of California Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Landscape Genetics and Connectivity within the Suisun Bay Area Recovery Unit A salt marsh harvest mouse from Grizzly Island Wildlife Area, Goodyear Slough, Suisun. Photo: Katie Smith. August 2018 Technical Report in Fulfillment of Agreement No. A07-0008 between AECOM Technical Services Inc. and the Regents of the University of California, and Agreement No. 4600011293 between Department of Water Resources and the Regents of the University of California Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Landscape Genetics and Connectivity within the Suisun Bay Area Recovery Unit Prepared by: Mark J. Statham University of California, Davis Veterinary Genetics Lab Benjamin N. Sacks University of California, Davis Veterinary Genetics Lab Other Project Partners: Laureen Barthman-Thompson Suisun Marsh Unit California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sarah Estrella Suisun Marsh Unit California Department of Fish and Wildlife Caitlin Roddy Suisun Marsh Planning Section California Department of Water Resources Prepared for: California Department of Water Resources Division of Environmental Services, Suisun Marsh Branch 3500 Industrial Boulevard West Sacramento, CA 95691 Contact: Cliff Feldheim, Chief Suisun Marsh Branch (916) 379-9693 [email protected] June 2019 State of California Gavin Newsom, Governor California Natural Resources Agency Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources Department of Water Resources Karla Nemeth, Director Cindy Messer Chief Deputy Director Michelle Banonis, J.D. Assistant Chief Deputy Director Kasey Schimke Erin Mellon Spencer Kenner, J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Narratives-Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The
    Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta A Report to the Delta Protection Commission Prepared by the Center for California Studies California State University, Sacramento August 1, 2015 Project Team Steve Boilard, CSU Sacramento, Project Director Robert Benedetti, CSU Sacramento, Co-Director Margit Aramburu, University of the Pacific, Co-Director Gregg Camfield, UC Merced Philip Garone, CSU Stanislaus Jennifer Helzer, CSU Stanislaus Reuben Smith, University of the Pacific William Swagerty, University of the Pacific Marcia Eymann, Center for Sacramento History Tod Ruhstaller, The Haggin Museum David Stuart, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Leigh Johnsen, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Dylan McDonald, Center for Sacramento History Michael Wurtz, University of the Pacific Blake Roberts, Delta Protection Commission Margo Lentz-Meyer, Capitol Campus Public History Program, CSU Sacramento Those wishing to cite this report should use the following format: Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015). Those wishing to cite the scholarly essays in the appendix should adopt the following format: Author, "Title of Essay", in Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015), appropriate page or pages. Cover Photo: Sign installed by Discover the Delta; art by Marty Stanley; Photo taken by Philip Garone.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT APPENDIX Q3: Identifying
    DRAFT APPENDIX Q3: Identifying, Mapping, and Quantifying Opportunities for Landscape- Scale Restoration in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Delta Plan Amendments May 2020 For assistance interpreting the content of this document, please contact Delta Stewardship Council staff. [email protected] Phone: 916-445-5511 This page left blank intentionally. APPENDIX Q3. IDENTIFYING, MAPPING, AND QUANTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LANDSCAPE-SCALE RESTORATION IN THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 2 Habitat and Connectivity for Native Fish and Marsh Wildlife ................................ 5 Habitat and Connectivity for Waterbirds ............................................................. 15 Habitat and Connectivity for Riparian Wildlife ..................................................... 21 Habitat and Connectivity for Edge Wildlife .......................................................... 29 Adaptation Potential ................................ ........................................................... 39 Productivity ................................ ......................................................................... 41 Biodiversity ................................ ......................................................................... 41 References ...............................
    [Show full text]