DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix G POINT BLUE CONSERVATION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix G POINT BLUE CONSERVATION Appendix G POINT BLUE CONSERVATION SCIENCE FINAL REPORT Natural resource vulnerabilities, potential adaptation strategies, and monitoring framework for Marin County’s outer coast sea level rise vulnerability assessment January 2017, Final Report Prepared for the Marin County Community Development Agency Natural resource vulnerabilities, potential adaptation strategies, and monitoring framework for Marin County’s outer coast sea level rise vulnerability assessment January 2017, Final Report Point Blue Conservation Science M. Hayden, S. Veloz, L. Salas, D. Jongsomjit, N. Nur Prepared for the Marin County Community Development Agency Suggested Citation Point Blue Conservation Science. 2016. Natural resource vulnerabilities, potential adaptation strategies, and monitoring framework for Marin County’s outer coast sea level rise vulnerability assessment. Prepared for the Marin County Community Development Agency. Point Blue Conservation Science – Point Blue’s 140 staff and seasonal scientists conserve birds, other wildlife, and ecosystems through science, partnerships, and outreach. We have been assessing changes in our environment and advancing conservation since our founding as Point Reyes Bird Observatory in 1965. Visit Point Blue on the web www.pointblue.org. Cover photo credit: Cory Gregory 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................................... 3 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................. 3 SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITIES .................................................................................................................. 5 NATURAL RESOURCE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 6 Natural land cover..................................................................................................................................... 6 Critical habitat for federally listed species ................................................................................................ 6 Other listed species ................................................................................................................................. 11 Projected marsh bird response to estuary evolution ............................................................................. 11 Eelgrass ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Pinniped haul outs .................................................................................................................................. 19 Seabird colonies ...................................................................................................................................... 20 ADAPTATION STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................................... 21 MONITORING FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................... 26 Hypotheses of future change .................................................................................................................. 26 Monitoring ecosystem change ................................................................................................................ 26 Target species population trends ........................................................................................................... 27 Design monitoring program .................................................................................................................... 29 Evaluate monitoring costs relative to goals ............................................................................................ 29 REFERENCES CITED ...................................................................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX A - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON LISTED SPECIES ................................................................. 32 APPENDIX B - SEABIRD COLONY VULNERABILITY ....................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX C - DEVELOPING A CLIMATE ADAPTATION MONITORING PROGRAM ...................................... 35 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This assessment was intended to assist Marin County in identifying site-specific vulnerability of natural resource assets to sea level rise and coastal erosion, to provide nature-based adaptation strategy suggestions to address identified natural resource vulnerabilities, and to provide a framework for monitoring of potential strategies. The goal was to further inform Marin County’s sea level rise vulnerability assessment for the outer coast (C-SMART). Our analysis was limited to available geospatial data of mapped natural resource assets and existing modeling of projected hazards including (1) flood extent and depth from the Our Coast, Our Future project, (2) marsh elevation capital projections (projected evolution of estuary habitat) completed by ESA (2015), and (3) beach/cliff erosion projections for select areas also completed by ESA (2015). Natural resource assets analyzed include: Habitat - based on land cover from NOAA’s Coastal Change Analysis Program Terrestrial state- and federally-listed species Tidal marsh bird indicator species (response to projected estuary evolution) Eelgrass beds Mammal haul-outs Seabird colonies If a natural resource asset was not included, this is likely a reflection of lack of appropriate geospatial data and should not be assumed to mean it bears no risk. This is particularly true for aquatic species. For example, no spatial data were available for wild oyster or mussel beds. Certain aquatic species such as fish (i.e., coho salmon, longfin smelt, and tidewater goby) were not assessed given lack of modeling that appropriately reflects projected future habitat shifts. STUDY AREA The study area encompasses non-federal lands within Marin County’s Coastal Zone boundary and areas immediately offshore (Figure 1), including Tomales Bay and Bolinas Lagoon. Federal lands were not included because Marin County has no jurisdictional authority. In some cases (e.g., listed species), federal lands were included for context and this is noted accordingly. 3 Figure 1. Study region extent. 4 SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITIES There are three key regions within the study area that have natural resource assets at risk: Dillon Beach, Tomales Bay, and Bolinas Lagoon/Sea Drift. Table 1 presents a summary of the natural resource assets that are particularly at risk, based on our limited analysis. For most assets, the vulnerability will be mediated depending on the availability of upslope accommodation space and the ability of the asset to migrate in pace with sea level rise. For example, Bolinas Lagoon is an important estuary but is topographically confined. The lack of upland accommodation space makes vegetated marsh habitat particularly at risk from sea level rise. Table 1. Summary of key natural resource vulnerabilities. Region Dillon Beach Tomales Bay Bolinas Lagoon/Beach Natural Resource Beach/dune habitat Eelgrass beds Vegetated marsh Assets Particularly Critical habitat for the Two large estuary habitat at Risk endangered Western complexes with Pinniped haul-out sites Snowy Plover associated plants and Western Snowy Plover Last remaining natural wildlife habitat population of Showy Pinniped haul-out Rancheria Clover sites Primary Hazards Coastal erosion and/or Permanent Permanent inundation and Vulnerabilities inundation from sea level inundation from sea from sea level rise or rise level rise or changes changes in wave in wave exposure, exposure. with potentially Lagoon is limited upslope topographically accommodation confined so upland space accommodation space severely limited Beach erosion 5 NATURAL RESOURCE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Natural land cover Natural lands within the study area are predominately grassland and other upland vegetation types (Table 2). These upland types are projected to be minimally affected (≤ 1%) by inundation from sea level rise (Table 2), reflecting the steep topography of much of Marin’s outer coast. Habitats at the land-water interface (e.g., beaches and coastal wetlands) are most exposed to potential inundation resulting from sea level rise. While the total spatial extent of these habitats is small relative to upland types, they tend to support a disproportionate number of endemic species (e.g., tidewater goby, black rail) and high species diversity (Hutto et al. 2015). The Unconsolidated Shore cover class includes sandy beach-dune habitat at Dillon and Stinson/Seadrift beaches, as well as rocky shoreline between Rocky Point and Slide Ranch. Tidal, higher salinity wetland types (Estuarine cover classes) are concentrated around Bolinas Lagoon and the deltas of Lagunitas and Walker creeks in Tomales Bay. Freshwater (Palustrine) wetland types are concentrated around creeks draining into Bolinas Lagoon and the eastern side of Tomales Bay. Approximately 1/3 of habitats at the land-water interface are projected to be inundated with 200cm of sea level rise (Table 2). The potential site-specific effects of this on key species is discussed in more detail below. Table 2. Total area of natural land classes within the study area, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Changes in Breeding Population Size of Brandt's and Double-Crested
    Changes in Breeding Population Size of Brandt’s and Double-crested Cormorants in California, 1975-2003 Phillip J. Capitolo1, Harry R. Carter1,4, Richard J. Young1, Gerard J. McChesney2, William R. McIver1,5, Richard T. Golightly1, and Franklin Gress3 1Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521 USA 2San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 524, Newark, California 94560 USA 3California Institute of Environmental Studies, 3408 Whaler Avenue, Davis, California 95616 USA Final Report for Contract # 10154-2-G106 between Humboldt State University Foundation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service July 2004 4Current Address: 5700 Arcadia Road, Apt. #219, Richmond, British Columbia V6X2G9 Canada 5Current Address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 USA Suggested Citation: Capitolo, P. J., H. R. Carter, R. J. Young, G. J. McChesney, W. R. McIver, R. T. Golightly, and F. Gress. 2004. Changes in breeding population size of Brandt’s and Double- crested Cormorants in California, 1975-2003. Unpublished report, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Protected Areas of Washington, Oregon, and California Compiled
    Marine Protected Areas of Washington, Oregon, and California compiled by Al J. Didier, Jr. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 45 SE 82nd Drive, Suite 100 Gladstone, OR 97027-2522 December 1998 Conducted under Contract No. 98-08 from the Pacific Fishery Management Council LIST OF TABLES Table 1. National marine sanctuaries of California, Oregon, and Washington. .............................6 Table 2. National Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington. ....................................................................................................................7 Table 3. National parks and monuments of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington. ............8 Table 4. Marine protected areas designated by state and local governments in California ..........10 Table 5. Marine protected areas designated by state and local governments in Oregon..............19 Table 6. Marine protected areas designated by state and local governments in Washington. ......21 Table 7. National Estuarine Research Reserves of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington. 27 Table 8. National Estuary Program sites of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington. ..........28 Table 9. UNESCO MAB Biosphere Reserve sites of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington.29 Table 10. Nearshore submarine cable segments off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. ..................................................................................................................30 Table 11. Coordinates (decimal degrees)
    [Show full text]
  • Gentry Suisun Draft EIR Vol II
    Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX A- EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 162 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX B- EXISTING LOS RESULTS 163 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX C- EXISTING PLUS APPROVED LOS RESULTS 164 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX D- MODEL DOCUMENTATION 165 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX E- CUMULATIVE LOS RESULTS 166 Administrative Draft EIR Suisun Gentry Project February 10, 2006 4.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential biological resource impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Suisun Gentry Project and includes a discussion of the mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level where possible. The information contained in this analysis is primarily based upon the Biological Assessment, Gentry-Suisun Project, City of Suisun City, Solano County, California prepared by The Huffman-Broadway Group (2006) and the Wetland Delineation and Special- Status Species Survey Report prepared by Vollmar Consulting (2003). Additional details on plant and wildlife species presence are based upon field surveys performed by Foothill Associates’ biologists. This report describes the habitat types, jurisdictional waters, and presence/absence of special-status plants and animals at the Proposed Project area and provides a review of existing literature, maps, and aerial photography pertaining to the biological resources of the area. It also evaluates potential impacts of the proposed Project in relation to CEQA and other environmental laws, and provides mitigation recommendations. Foothill Associates has prepared this Section of the EIR for the proposed Suisun Gentry Project (Project) in central Solano County, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Anchor-Out Update USFWS California Condor
    SPEAKER SERIES Newsletter of the Marin Audubon Society. Vol. 60, No. 08 April 2018 Free and Open to the public Richardson Bay Audubon Center 376 Greenwood Beach Road, Tiburon Information: 415/789-0703 THURSDAY, APRIL 12 7:30 PM Recovery of the California Condor With Richard Neidhardt The MARIN AUDUBONRail SOCIETY Anchor-out Update USFWS California Condor The recovery of California Condors from near-extinction is one of the inspiring stories of American conservation. Richard Neidhardt will describe the California Condor Recovery Project's past and present The two hundred anchor-outs work restoring populations of this in Richardson Bay have iconic raptor. He'll also share his damaged more than fifty personal experiences working as a acres of valuable eelgrass habitat. A new effort has volunteer with the condor program at begun to consider how to Pinnacles National Park. deal with the unauthorized Richard Neidhardt was born and Robert Hinz boats. raised in South Carolina. He grew up on a lake, obsessed with everything pproximately 100 people attended discussion covered debris and derelict boat that crawled, hopped, slithered, the Richardson Bay Regional Agency removal. There were four or five voices swam or flew. This obsession has (RBRA) workshop on March 6 to hear supporting the need to remove occupied stayed with him throughout his Aa review from RBRA Executive Director, Beth anchor-out boats, which is more support than life. After a 40-year career as a Pollard, of the Opportunities and Challenges usual. Thank you to those supporters of the Bay. construction manager/estimator, report. There was a lively discussion ranging A summary will be produced and discussed Richard retired in 2009 and began from enforcing existing laws to modifying rules at the April 5 hearing date.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 48/Thursday, March 12, 2015/Rules
    13078 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE I. Background opportunity to review any proposed rule and related environmental analyses. National Oceanic and Atmospheric A. Effective Date B. GFNMS Background Administration This rule postpones for 6 months the effective date for the discharge NOAA designated GFNMS in 1981 to 15 CFR Part 922 requirements in both expansion areas protect and preserve a unique and with regard to U.S. Coast Guard fragile ecological community, including [Docket No. 130405335–4999–02] activities. In the course of this rule the largest seabird colony in the contiguous United States and diverse making NOAA learned from Coast and abundant marine mammals. Guard that the discharge regulations had RIN 0648–BD18 GFNMS is located along and offshore the potential to impair the operations of California’s north-central coast, west of Expansion of Gulf of the Farallones Coast Guard vessels and air craft northern San Mateo, San Francisco, and Cordell Bank National Marine conducting law enforcement, search and Marin and southern Sonoma Counties. Sanctuaries, and Regulatory Changes rescue training and other statutorily GFNMS was previously composed of mandated activities in Gulf of the approximately 1,282 square miles (968 AGENCY: Office of National Marine Farallones and Cordell Bank national square nautical miles (sq. nmi)) of Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean marine sanctuaries. The USCG supports Service (NOS), National Oceanic and offshore waters extending out to and national marine sanctuary management around the Farallon Islands, nearshore Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), by providing routine surveillance and Department of Commerce (DOC).
    [Show full text]
  • P a C I F I C O C E
    C o l i e e MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT d r i S To BOLINAS RIDGE, S rth East Peak p No MOUNT TAMALPAIS WATERSHED OLEMA VALLEY, r 2571ft o i I n n Middle Peak 784m o TOMALES BAY, and g t K POINT REYES NATIONAL e 2480ft - W H rn E ig a - Corte Madera h tion 756m e e SEASHORE Marsh al o st Potrero d o Rifle a K R M r T o- de i e a d West Peak G o r i m H G g g l 2560ft l d e e d e n l a c r a r L ll i East Peak p o a 780m o a r e urel De r r l s p il i t B vard Old Ra Visitor Center B Laurel Dell S ule I S a e k o c o P A R u Barths Retreat o L Gardner Lookout l n R B A e - d v s s t M l a t a s T A r M e t O d i e e e ic n in r T g rad k e n a G ey O’Bri S c N t F ad u e o i S e O r U ld ail H m g R g O r C d d n L a i l U C m r G L R M C a a O r C N t o t ing R s r ity O a n Sp a Grav S r a t N a s k t I E e c l S T c g e West Point Inn a p S t o s t Hoo-Koo-E-Koo R n i S k a H e d k o e l B g Dav p O u t is b t C c Mountain a a m k r c a M Theater C k C w B r Mountain o o Bootjack ill ot Home Inn Rock Spring E jac W as k y G Old M r Mill Valley C i a S P oa n d ie a st e e r n T r a 0 l roop 8 a o k to r e n ll a e a R r P oa m C d F i k e c r c n Lost H Ro Alice i B gh le Eastwood w o b o C a s tjac a T i Pantoll k r v y a e D State Park Headquarters R att e M e T Stinson O k d y TCC c w T Beach e I a ib a o u w ohn J s n B n on o ro h Be d n g V B i ou U i leva e r H S t MUIR WOODS d ta d D w p l e R Tourist Club ic elve e R N r E m O P NATIONAL a a D 101 r Y r Homestead Valley O o k W n N MONUMENT Pa A O C D Sun N E ip O IN ea se
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Biking in Marin County Fact Book
    MOUNTAIN BIKING IN MARIN COUNTY FACT BOOK THE STATE OF MOUNTAIN BIKING IN MARIN COUNTY For over 100 years, hikers and equestrians have wandered amidst the natural bounty of Marin on narrow trails that began their lives under a varied prove- nance: animal paths, historic Native American footpaths, reclaimed logging roads as well as purpose-built trails. 40 years ago, mountain biking was born right here in Marin on the flanks of Mt. Tam and Pine Mountain. For a brief moment in time, mountain bikers peaceably shared all the trails of Marin with other users. Yet through years of exclusionary legislation, mountain biking in Marin is now largely relegated to fire roads with access to narrow trails disproportionately low compared to other user groups locally as well as compared to mountain bike access in other parts of the Bay THE BIRTHPLACE OF Area, California, the United States and worldwide. MOUNTAIN BIKING This compendium draws on user surveys, peer-reviewed research, comparison studies and public lands policy in Marin County to help provide accurate, current knowledge with the goal of proving two main points: • Mountain biking is a safe, healthy, low-impact activity enjoyed by a significant number and wide cross section of Marin County’s citizens • There is no substantiated, reasonable cause—including safety or enviromental concerns—to prohibit mountain bike access to more narrow trails on public lands in Marin ACCESS4BIKES’ To motivate and empower Marin mountain bikers to act in their own self-interest, to get fair and reasonable access to our public trails and MISSION STATEMENT to preserve the experience of trail riding for future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Assessment of Four Potential Common Murre Restoration Projects
    Assessment of Four Potential Common Murre Restoration Projects in Northern California A Report to the Stuyvesant Trustee Council and U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Arcata Field Office, Arcata, California Fulfillment, in part, of Agreements BAA080012 and L08AC13270 Between the Humboldt State Sponsored Programs Foundation and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arcata Field Office Prepared by Humboldt State University, Department of Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Carter Biological Consulting Michael W. Parker1,4, Gerard J. McChesney2, Harry R. Carter3 and Richard T. Golightly1 1Humboldt State University, Department of Wildlife, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, California 95521 USA 2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex 9500 Thornton Avenue, Newark, California 94560 USA 3Carter Biological Consulting, 1015 Hampshire Road, Victoria, British Columbia V8S 4S8 Canada 4Current Address: 39913 Sharon Avenue, Davis, California 95521 USA FINAL REPORT October 2011 Suggested Citation: Parker, M.W., G.J. McChesney, H.R. Carter, and R.T. Golightly. 2011. Assessment of four potential Common Murre restoration projects in northern California. Unpublished Report, Humboldt State University, Department of Wildlife, Arcata, California; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, California; and Carter Biological Consulting, Victoria, British Columbia. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Coastal National Monument, Literature Search And
    California Coastal National Monument Literature Search and Summarization of Key Biological Resources of the Monument Seabirds and Marine Mammals Prepared For: Bureau of Land Management California Coastal National Monument 299 Foam Street Monterey, CA 93940 Contact: Rick Hanks Prepared By: Mad River Biologists 1497 Central Avenue McKinleyville, CA 95519 David Fix, Biologist Heather Beeler, Biologist Ron LeValley, Senior Biologist Submitted: June 15, 2002 ____________________________________________ Table of Contents I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 The Offshore Rocks .................................................................................................................... 3 Description of Habitat................................................................................................................. 3 General Management Considerations........................................................................................ 4 Fishing..................................................................................................................................... 4 Recreational Kayaking and Scuba Diving .............................................................................. 5 Seaweed collecting.................................................................................................................. 5 Management recommendations to reduce direct human disturbances ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Regional Profile of the North Central Coast Study Region May 7, 2007Draft
    California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Regional Profile of the North Central Coast Study Region May 7, 2007Draft 1.0 Introduction The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) was signed into law in 1999. The MLPA directs the state to redesign California’s system of marine protected areas to increase its coherence and effectiveness in protecting the state’s marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage, as well as to improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems. To the extent possible, the system is to be designed and managed as a network. In August 2004, the California Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Resource Legacy Fund Foundation signed a memorandum of understanding launching the MLPA Initiative and implementation of the MLPA in the central coast. Among other actions, the MLPA Initiative established the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, the Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT), a statewide stakeholder interests group, and MLPA Initiative staff. A second memorandum of understanding, effective January 1, 2007, continues the public-private partnership for planning and implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the north central coast. By December 2006 five key objectives were achieved by the MLPA Initiative: (1) a draft Master Plan Framework for MPAs was developed, (2) alternative proposals for MPAs in the central coast study region were developed and submitted to CDFG, (3) a strategy was recommended for long-term funding for MPA implementation and management, (4) a report was prepared with recommendations to increase coordination and collaboration among state and federal agencies with the authority to manage marine resources, and (5) a recommended executive order was submitted to secure agreement among state agencies to complete implementation of a statewide Master Plan for MPAs by 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Dogs on GGNRA Lands
    May—June 2011 May—June 2011 Editorial Dogs on GGNRA Lands People, their pets, Muir Beach (right) and the environment has traditionally been a popular spot hy have we devoted several pages for dogs to play Wof this Newsletter to a proposed in the sand and Dog Management Plan for Golden Gate surf. Effective dog National Recreation Area? We all care management will deeply about the environment—and require clear signage most of us also own pets. We are roughly and consistent divided between dog owners and cat enforcement. owners, with some outliers who own neither, and many who keep both in their households. Pets bring all kinds of enjoyment, keep us fit, and studies show they improve mental health, but even the photos by Dru Parker most ardent environmentalists among us are not always willing to restrict their The Plan focuses on 21 most heavily- pets’ “natural” behaviors. visited sites within GGNRA. In brief, the Plan Marin County is fortunate in having recommends a “default rule” that dogs are more than half of the county under allowed in GGNRA only as expressly permitted federal, state, water district, and local at the 21 sites, and only under the limitations county ownership and management. established for each site. Seven of the sites These lands are our backyard, our are in Marin County. destination on a weekend of escape, Among national parks, GGNRA is unique our scenic backdrop. They are also the in its diversity of natural and cultural places where we love to walk with our resources and varieties of user facilities and in canine companions, and therein lies the Contributed by Delos Putz, Nona Dennis, and the proximity to a dense urban area and diverse problem: dogs are not always welcome, MCL Parks and Open Space Committee local communities and neighborhoods.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of the Occurrence, Population Status, and Management of the Western Gull (Larus Occidentalis) on Alcatraz Island
    Summary of the Occurrence, Population Status, and Management of the Western Gull (Larus occidentalis) on Alcatraz Island July 7, 2008 Prepared for: National Parks Conservation Association Summary of the Occurrence, Population Status, and Management of the Western Gull (Larus occidentalis) on Alcatraz Island Prepared for: National Parks Conservation Association 230 Cherry Street, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Contact: Gail Dethloff (970) 493-2545 Prepared by: Estep Environmental Consulting 3202 Spinning Rod Way Sacramento, CA 95833 Contact: Jim Estep (916) 921-2515 July 2008 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 1-1 1.1 Historical Context……………………………………………………… 1-2 1.2 Description of Key Management Directives………………………….. 1-3 1.3 Purpose………………………………………………………………… 1-5 2.0 Western Gull Status and Life History……………………………………. 2-1 2.1 Legal and Conservation Status………………..……………………….. 2-1 2.2 Life History……………………………………………………………. 2-1 2.2.1 Seasonal Patterns……………………….………………………… 2-1 2.2.2 Habitat Associations……………………………………………… 2-2 2.2.3 Threats to the Species…………………………………………….. 2-4 2.2.4 Nuisance Issues…………………………..……………………….. 2-4 3.0 Western Gull Distribution and Abundance…………………………..…… 3-1 3.1 Global…………………………………………………………………… 3-1 3.2 Regional………………………………………………………………… 3-2 3.3 San Francisco Bay Area………………………………………………… 3-3 3.4 Population Trends………………………………………………………. 3-6 4.0 Western Gulls on Alcatraz Island……………….………………………… 4-1 4.1 Historical Context………………………………………….…………… 4-1 4.2 Recolonization………………………………………………………….. 4-1 4.3 Population Trend and Current Status…………………………………… 4-1 4.3.1 Monitoring Efforts and Population Trend…………………………. 4-1 4.3.2 Nesting Distribution……………………………………………….. 4-2 4.3.3 Carrying Capacity…………………………………………………. 4-2 4.3.4 Relative Abundance……………………………………………….. 4-4 4.3.5 Population Viability……………………………………………….
    [Show full text]