DOCSLIB.ORG

Pilarcitos Lagoon Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study: Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pilarcitos Lagoon Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study: Final Report Wetlands and Water Resources, Inc 818 5th Avenue, Suite 208 San Rafael, California 94901 tel 415.457.0250 fax 415.457.0260 www.swampthing.org Pilarcitos Lagoon Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study: Final Report 11 May 2010 Prepared for: San Mateo County Resource Conservation District 625 Miramontes Street Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, California 94019 www.sanmateorcd.org With: Peter Baye, PhD D.W. Alley and Associates Project No. 1148 Planning Assessment Design Implementation Applied Science Pilarcitos Lagoon Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study Final Report – May 11, 2010 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Project Process ................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Terminology ..................................................................................................................... 5 2 Summary of Conceptual Model ........................................................................................... 7 3 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................ 9 3.1 Criterion 1: Benefits to Target Species ........................................................................... 10 3.2 Criterion 2: Implementation Costs ................................................................................. 10 3.3 Criterion 3: Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................... 11 3.4 Criterion 4: Probability of Securing Funding for Implementation ................................. 11 3.5 Criterion 5: Life Expectancy without Operations and Maintenance .............................. 11 3.6 Criterion 6: Intensity and Cost of Operations and Maintenance ................................... 11 3.7 Criterion 7: Interactions with Other Habitat Enhancement Efforts ............................... 11 3.8 Criterion 8: Level of Community/Stakeholder Project Support ..................................... 12 3.9 Criterion 9: Potential Unintended Consequences ......................................................... 12 3.10 Criterion 10: Costs and Benefits Relative to Actions above Highway 1 ..................... 13 3.11 Criterion 11: Extent Option “Works with Nature” ..................................................... 13 4 Enhancement Options ........................................................................................................ 13 4.1 Option 1: Improve Backwater Slough Habitat for Steelhead ......................................... 16 4.1.1 Existing Wetland Environment ............................................................................... 16 4.1.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 17 4.1.3 Approach Options ................................................................................................... 18 4.1.4 Opportunities and Constraints ............................................................................... 19 4.1.5 Feasibility Evaluation .............................................................................................. 21 4.2 Option 2: Flow Manipulations in Pilarcitos Creek .......................................................... 23 4.2.1 Setting ..................................................................................................................... 24 4.2.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 26 4.2.3 Approach ................................................................................................................. 27 4.2.4 Opportunities and Constraints ............................................................................... 33 4.2.5 Feasibility Evaluation .............................................................................................. 34 4.3 Option 3: Create Scour Pools in Lower Channel ............................................................ 38 4.3.1 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 39 4.3.2 Approach ................................................................................................................. 39 Pilarcitos enhancement feasibility report final_2010‐0511ct 5/11/2010 i Pilarcitos Lagoon Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study Final Report – May 11, 2010 4.3.3 Opportunities and Constraints ............................................................................... 39 4.3.4 Feasibility Evaluation .............................................................................................. 41 4.4 Option 4: Limit Northward Drift of Beach Outlet .......................................................... 43 4.4.1 Existing Berm and Backbeach Channel Environment ............................................. 43 4.4.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 44 4.4.3 Approach and Design Options ................................................................................ 44 4.4.4 Feasibility Evaluation .............................................................................................. 53 4.5 Option 5: Improve Equestrian Crossing ......................................................................... 57 4.5.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 57 4.5.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 58 4.5.3 Approaches, Opportunities and Constraints .......................................................... 59 4.5.4 Feasibility Evaluation .............................................................................................. 62 5 Conclusions and Next Steps .............................................................................................. 65 6 References ........................................................................................................................... 66 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Enhancement Options Table 2. Pilarcitos Creek Lagoon Closures, WY2003‐2009 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Location Map Figure 3. Annotated Historic Aerial Photographs Figure 4. US Coast Survey Maps, 1860 and 1863 Figure 5. Digital Elevation Model Figure 6. Conceptual Deflection Structure Design Figure 7. Conceptual Deflection Berm Design List of Appendices Appendix A Conceptual Model Appendix B Results of Vascular Plant Surveys at the Pilarcitos Creek Mouth Pilarcitos enhancement feasibility report final_2010‐0511ct 5/11/2010 ii Pilarcitos Lagoon Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study Final Report – May 11, 2010 Acknowledgements The project team has thoroughly enjoyed working on the Pilarcitos Lagoon Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study and having an opportunity to contribute to the body of knowledge of coastal lagoon ecosystems along California’s Central Coast. We are especially grateful for the support and collaboration of our client, the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District, whose project efforts were capably led by Executive Director Kellyx Nelson. We are grateful for the rigorous scientific review and collaboration provided by the project’s Technical Advisory Committee, which consisted of the following individuals: Tim Frahm, San Mateo County Farm Bureau Jim Howard, Natural Resource Conservation Service Joanne Kerbavaz, California Department of Parks and Recreation Jane Lavelle, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission George Neillands, California Department of Fish and Game Patrick Rutten, National Marine Fisheries Service Jim Salerno, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Lori Schectel, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Dan Sicular, ESA A number of additional individuals provided valuable assistance with scientific/policy review and collaboration, including: Cathleen Brennan, Coastside County Water District Kit Crump, National Marine Fisheries Service John Klochak, US Fish and Wildlife Service Tim Ramirez, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission We would also like to thank the many people who contributed personal knowledge of Pilarcitos Creek, its history, and its environs, including Keith Mangold, June Morrall, John and Kristina Schmale, and John Vonderlin. The input provided by these individuals provided important insights into how past activities within and around the creek may have impacted historic and existing conditions. We would also like to thank Shannon Lyday at the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary BeachWatch program and Asha Kreilling, an intern at the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District, who provided valuable data about opening and closing patterns at the outlets of Pilarcitos and Frenchman’s Creeks. We also appreciate the efforts of Meredith Manning and Casey Cleve at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, who provided valuable processed LiDAR data for the Project vicinity. Finally, it is important to note
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Memorial Sam Mcdonald Pescadero
    Topher Simon Topher permitted in trail camps. trail in permitted water is available at trail camps. Backpack stoves are are stoves Backpack camps. trail at available is water who register with the ranger at Memorial Park. No No Park. Memorial at ranger the with register who snakes, and banana slugs. banana and snakes, available for a fee on a drop-in basis for backpackers backpackers for basis drop-in a on fee a for available woodpeckers, Steller’s jays, garter snakes, gopher gopher snakes, garter jays, Steller’s woodpeckers, hikes passing through multiple parks. multiple through passing hikes Trail camps camps Trail at Shaw Flat and Tarwater Flat are are Flat Tarwater and Flat Shaw at tailed deer, raccoons, opossums, foxes, bobcats, bobcats, foxes, opossums, raccoons, deer, tailed State Park, offering the opportunity for several long long several for opportunity the offering Park, State Common wildlife in Sam McDonald includes black- includes McDonald Sam in wildlife Common Trailheads. The trail network also connects to Big Basin Redwoods Redwoods Basin Big to connects also network trail The State Park, and at the Old Haul Road and Tarwater Tarwater and Road Haul Old the at and Park, State leaf maple, and oak trees. oak and maple, leaf a number of trails with Portola Redwoods State Park Park State Redwoods Portola with trails of number a Ranger Station, Portola Trailhead, Portola Redwoods Redwoods Portola Trailhead, Portola Station, Ranger Douglas fir, madrone, California laurel, buckeye, big big buckeye, laurel, California madrone, fir, Douglas Pescadero Creek Park shares its eastern boundary and and boundary eastern its shares Park Creek Pescadero inter-park trail network trail inter-park from the Sam McDonald McDonald Sam the from The forests, dominated by coast redwood, also include include also redwood, coast by dominated forests, The rugged beauty offers a true escape.
    [Show full text]
  • 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California
    1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: Premia Capital, LLC 801 Hamilton Street Redwood City, CA Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. January 18, 2019 1180 MAIN STREET PROJECT, CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND EVALUATION REPORT, REDWOOD CITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This document entitled 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California was prepared by Stantec Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Premia Capital, LLC (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Joanne Grant, Archaeologist, MA, RPA Reviewed by (signature) John A. Nadolski, M.A. Approved
    [Show full text]
  • Central Coast
    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County BBE Final Report-2016.11.2
    Assessment and Management Prioritization Regime for the Bar-built Estuaries of San Mateo County Summary Report San Pedro Creek Prepared for: United States Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Area Coastal Program by: Central Coast Wetlands Group Moss Landing Marine Labs 8272 Moss Landing Rd. Moss Landing, CA 95039 November 2016 Summary Report: Bar-Built Estuaries of San Mateo County TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Background and Need .................................................................................................................................... 3 What are BBEs and Why are they Important ............................................................................................................ 3 BBE are the most dominant estuarine resource on the San Mateo County coastline .............................................. 4 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methods .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ranchos of California
    COUNTY RANCHO By Cities on or near this rancho Alameda San Antonio Spain Alameda, Oakland, Berkeley, Albany,Emeryville, Piedmont, San Leandro Alameda San Ramon Mexico Dublin area and also in Contra Costa County Alameda Agua Caliente Mexico Fremont (Warm Springs area) near the mission Alameda Los Positas Mexico Livermore area Alameda Canada Vaqueros Mexico Livermore, but mostly in Contra Costa County Alameda San Leandro Mexico San Leandro, San Lorenzo area Alameda El Valle de San Jose Mexico Pleasanton, Sunol Alameda Potrero de los Cerritos Mexico Union City Alameda San Lorenzo Mexico Hayward, Castro Valley Alameda Arroyo de la Alameda Mexico Fremont (Niles area) Alameda Santa Rita Mexico Livermore, Dublin, Sunol Alpine No Ranchos See Yolo and Solano counties Amador No Ranchos See Yolo and Solano counties Butte Rancho del Arroyo Chico Mexico Along the river in Chico Butte Esquon Mexico Chico, Butte Creek, 7 miles south of Chico Butte Aguas Frias, later known as the Mexico South of Durham Pratt Grant Butte Bosquejo Mexico Between Chico and Los Molinos; Red Bluff (in Tehama County) Butte Llano Seco, later known as the Mexico Near Chico and Durham Parrott Grant Calaveras No early Ranchos See San Joaquin & Shasta counties Colusa Larkin Grant (surveyed by John Mexico West bank of Sacramento River in Princeton area and into Bidwell) Glenn County. Contra Costa San Pablo Mexico El Cerrito, Richmond, and San Pablo. Contra Costa San Ramon Mexico San Ramon Valley, Dublin, Alamo, and surrounding areas Contra Costa El Sobrante de San Ramon Mexico Walnut Creek, Tice Valley, East of Alamo (Stone Ranch area) Contra Costa Acalanes Mexico Lafayette, Happy Valley area Contra Costa Los Medanos (Meganos) Mexico Brentwood and Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • 203287 Cov Final Vol 1.Ai
    Summary Summary SUMMARY Sections Figures Tables S.1 Introduction and Purpose of S.1 Overview of SFPUC Regional S.1 WSIP Goals and Objectives the PEIR System and Water Supply Watersheds S.2 WSIP Facility Improvement S.2 Program Description Projects S.2 SFPUC Water Service Area – S.3 Environmental Effects San Francisco and SFPUC S.3 Summary of WSIP Facility Construction and Operation S.4 Areas of Controversy and Wholesale Customers Impacts Issues to be Resolved S.3 Annual Average Historical and S.4 Summary of Facility Mitigation S.5 Required Actions and Projected Customer Purchase Measures by Impact Approvals Requests S.5 Summary of Water Supply Impacts S.6 WSIP Variants S.4 WSIP Water Supply Sources, Nondrought Years and Mitigation Measures – S.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Tuolumne River System and Program S.5 WSIP Water Supply Sources, Downstream Water Bodies Drought Years S.6 Summary of Water Supply Impacts S.6a Location of WSIP Facility and Mitigation Measures – Improvement Projects – Sunol Alameda Creek Watershed Valley, Bay Division, Peninsula, and San Francisco Regions S.7 Summary of Water Supply Impacts and Mitigation Measures – S.6b Location of WSIP Facility Peninsula Watersheds Improvement Projects – San Joaquin Region S.8 Summary of Water Supply Impacts and Mitigation Measures – S.6c Location of WSIP Facility Westside Groundwater Basin Improvement Projects – Hetch Hetchy Region S.9 Summary of Water Supply Impacts and Mitigation Measures – S.7 Preliminary WSIP Construction Cumulative Water Supply Schedule S.1 Introduction and Purpose of the PEIR (Chapter 1) The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) proposes to adopt and implement the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP or proposed program) to increase the reliability of the regional water system that serves 2.4 million people in San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion for the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Stilling Basin Connecting Channel Project in San Mateo County, California (Corps File No
    March 21, 2019 Refer to NMFS No: WCRO-2016-00003 Katerina Galacatos, Ph.D. Acting Regulatory Branch Chief Department of the Army San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 4th Floor, Suite 0134 San Francisco, California 94102-3406 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion for the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Stilling Basin Connecting Channel Project in San Mateo County, California (Corps File No. 2006-30317S) Dear Dr. Galacatos: Thank you for your letter of July 13, 2016, requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the proposed Lower Crystal Springs Dam Stilling Basin Connecting Channel Project in the County of San Mateo, California (Project). The Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposes to provide authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.), to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to construct the Project. The enclosed biological opinion is based on our review of the proposed Project and describes NMFS’ analysis of the effects on threatened Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. In the enclosed biological opinion, NMFS concludes the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened CCC steelhead. However, NMFS anticipates take of CCC steelhead will occur as a result of dewatering work areas during project construction. An incidental take statement with non-discretionary terms and conditions is included with the enclosed biological opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of San Mateo County San Pedro San Pedro Creek flows northwesterly, entering the Pacific Ocean at Pacifica State Beach. It drains a watershed about eight square miles in area. The upper portions of the drainage contain springs (feeding the south and middle forks) that produce perennial flow in the creek. Documents with information regarding steelhead in the San Pedro Creek watershed may refer to the North Fork San Pedro Creek and the Sanchez Fork. For purposes of this report, these tributaries are considered as part of the mainstem. A 1912 letter regarding San Mateo County streams indicates that San Pedro Creek was stocked. A fishway also is noted on the creek (Smith 1912). Titus et al. (in prep.) note DFG records of steelhead spawning in the creek in 1941. In 1968, DFG staff estimated that the San Pedro Creek steelhead run consisted of 100 individuals (Wood 1968). A 1973 stream survey report notes, “Spawning habitat is a limiting factor for steelhead” (DFG 1973a, p. 2). The report called the steelhead resources of San Pedro Creek “viable and important” but cited passage at culverts, summer water diversion, and urbanization effects on the stream channel and watershed hydrology as placing “the long-term survival of the steelhead resource in question”(DFG 1973a, p. 5). The lower portions of San Pedro Creek were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1989. Three O. mykiss year classes were observed during the study throughout the lower creek. Researchers noticed “a marked exodus from the lower creek during the late summer” of yearling and age 2+ individuals, many of which showed “typical smolt characteristics” (Sullivan 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising
    Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate Gordon S. Becker Katherine M. Smetak David A. Asbury This report should be cited as: Becker, G.S., K.M. Smetak, and D.A. Asbury. 2010. Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation: Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Approach and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1. San Mateo County .......................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2. Santa Cruz County .......................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3. Montery County .............................................................................................................. 67 Chapter 4. San Luis Obispo County ............................................................................................... 97 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OCTOBER 2005 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT Brian C. Spence Scott L. Harris Weldon E. Jones Matthew N. Goslin Aditya Agrawal Ethan Mora NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-383 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), organized in 1970, has evolved into an agency which establishes national policies and manages and conserves our oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. An organizational element within NOAA, the Office of Fisheries is responsible for fisheries policy and the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition to its formal publications, the NMFS uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series, however, reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. Disclaimer of endorsement: Reference to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of NOAA or the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Echo, 2020 Fall
    Mountain Echo THE NEWSLETTER OF SEMPERVIRENS FUND | FALL 2020 Neighbors in Common Cause The habitats, waterways, and natural resiliency scenic resources on their private forest lands. Those of the Santa Cruz Mountain region are at risk protections are connected to the property forever, unless we permanently protect healthy, connected no matter who owns the land, which is essential to coast redwood forests from development and maintaining a thriving regional forest ecosystem. degradation. Thanks to you, these conservation values are upheld when we protect wild areas and Conservation easements have helped protect vital transfer land to a public agency like California State conservation resources, like those found in the Parks. Another way to protect nature is partnering San Vicente Redwoods. They also ensure great with the region’s landowners to secure conservation youth experiences in nature, including easements easements for their land. This approach protects managed by Sempervirens Fund that keep camps forests on rural homesites, timberlands, outdoor like Camp Butano Creek, Camp Hammer, and educational camps, and other properties that Skylark Ranch operating for generations to come. cannot or should not become part of a traditional public park. Since 1900, Sempervirens Fund has permanently protected nearly 54 square miles of redwood Conservation easements allow landowners and forests in the Santa Cruz Mountains, raising a land trust, like Sempervirens Fund, to agree to more than $50 million to purchase and protect permanently protect a property’s natural and forest lands. With your support, and by leveraging Continued on p. 3 Rebecca Schoenenberger Gives Back to Nature Growing up in San Jose, Rebecca Schoenenberger For Rebecca, giving back is what it’s all about.
    [Show full text]
  • Butano State Park Preliminary General Plan and Draft EIR March 2008
    2 E XISTING C ONDITIONS Photo on reverse: View from Butano ridge Butano State Park Preliminary General Plan and Draft EIR March 2008 C HAPTER 2: E XISTING C ONDITIONS 2.1 REGIONAL LAND USE Land use patterns in the Santa Cruz Mountains as well as on the San Mateo and Santa Cruz county coasts have not changed dramatically in the recent past. The general character of land use surrounding Butano SP is a mix of natural lands, coastal terrace and valley agriculture, hillside grazing, timber production, and small residential properties. The community of Pescadero is located approximately 3.5 miles north of the park at the intersection of Cloverdale Road and Pescadero Road. Butano SP shares its southern border with Año Nuevo SP, with Año Nuevo State Natural Reserve (SNR) and Big Basin Redwoods SP in proximity. Pescadero State Beach (SB), Bean Hollow SB, and Pigeon Point Light Station State Historic Park (SHP) are to the northwest along the coast. Portola Redwoods SP, Pescadero Creek County Park, Michelson Ranch, and several other recreational and open space lands are located north of the park. Large undeveloped Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) properties are located adjacent to the park’s west side. Año Nuevo Point and the Santa Cruz Mountains, viewed from Private ownership around the park generally consists of Pigeon Point. relatively large or very small parcels of land. Large parcels of private forested lands, some in timber production, are located between Butano SP and Big Basin Redwoods SP to the east, and also on the park’s northern border.
    [Show full text]