DOCSLIB.ORG

SONOMA VALLEY HISTORICAL HYDROLOGY MAPPING PROJECT, TASK 2.4.B: FINAL REPORT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Sonoma Valley Historical Hydrology Mapping Project Phase I FINAL REPORT Task 2.4b Arthur Dawson, Baseline Consulting Alex Young, Sonoma Ecology Center Rebecca Lawton Consulting Funded by the Sonoma County Water Agency November 2016 Prepared by: Baseline Consulting, 13750 Arnold Drive, P.O. Box 207, Glen Ellen, CA 95442 Sonoma Ecology Center, P.O. Box 1486, Eldridge, CA 95431 Rebecca Lawton Consulting, P.O. Box 654, Vineburg, CA 95687 BASELINE CONSULTING, SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER, REBECCA LAWTON CONSULTING 2 CONTENTS OVERVIEW 3 METHODS 5 RESULTS 17 DISCUSSION 22 Comparison of Modern & Historical Conditions 24 RECOMMENDATIONS 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY 30 FIGURES 1. Project Area, Sonoma Valley Watershed, Sonoma County, California 4 2. Definition of Terms and Assumptions 6 3. Wetland Designations Used in this Study 10 4. Certainty Level Standards 14 5. Data Limitations and Temporal Context 15 6. Dates of Sources Used in this Study in Relation to Long-Term Rainfall 16 7. Estimated Pre-Settlement Freshwater Channels and Wetlands 18 8. Estimated Pre-Settlement Freshwater Channels and Wetlands (LIDAR Basemap) 19 9. Estimated Pre-Settlement Freshwater Channels and Wetlands (USGS quads) 20 10. Certainty Levels for Presence of Features Mapped from Historical Sources 21 11. Average annual hydrographs for the historical watershed for Napa River 25 APPENDIXES A. Selected Historical Maps A1. Detail from O’Farrell’s 1848 Rancho Petaluma Map A-2 A2. Confluence of Agua Caliente and Sonoma Creeks in 1860 A-3 A3. Confluence of Agua Caliente and Sonoma Creeks in 1980 A-4 A4. Alternate Channels Occupied by Pythian, an Unnamed Creek, and Sonoma Creek A-5 B. Fieldwork Notes and Selected Photos B1. Field Survey Locations B-6 D. Phase II Mapping Sample D1. Sample High-Resolution Map C-1 SONOMA VALLEY HISTORICAL HYDROLOGY MAPPING PROJECT, TASK 2.4.b: FINAL REPORT BASELINE CONSULTING, SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER, REBECCA LAWTON CONSULTING 3 OVERVIEW Rationale. Prior to extensive human modification, the Sonoma Valley watershed (Figure 1) enjoyed an abundance of surface and ground water, extensive wetlands, and high water quality. Previous studies (Lawton 2006; Micheli 2006; San Francisco Estuary Institute 2012; see also “Comparison of Modern & Historical Conditions,” pg. 24) have demonstrated that changes over the last two centuries have caused increased runoff, flooding, and sedimentation; decreased surface and groundwater; degraded habitat for salmonids and other species; and a loss of wetlands. In coming years, climate change is expected to aggravate these conditions with projected increases in both flooding and drought. Understanding how the watershed functioned before significant human modification is essential to planning projects that will reduce flooding, increase groundwater recharge, improve water quality and restore habitat. Project Goal. To complete a medium-resolution (1:72,000) historical hydrology map documenting historical freshwater channels and wetlands recorded for the Sonoma Valley watershed at the time of European-style settlement in the mid-19th century. Approach. An initial literature review was followed by a review and assessment of previous efforts in Sonoma Valley, particularly the Sediment Source Analysis (Lawton 2006) and the uncompleted Critical Coastal Areas (CCA) project begun in 2007. Geomorphologist Laurel Collins of Watershed Sciences and botanist and wetland expert Phillip Northen also provided additional guidance and feedback at various stages of the project. Drawing from, refining, and expanding on these earlier studies, the current project compiled, analyzed, integrated, and mapped data from a wide variety of sources into a computerized Geographic Information System (GIS). Sources included historical maps, documents, and photos; soil and heritage oak surveys; and oral histories from local elders. Historical channels and wetlands were mapped. The majority of sources that were consulted included data up to the 19th century, while a few also included information from the early 20th century (see Appendix A for examples). After verifying the historical presence of a feature, more recent sources were used to refine its attributes. In particular, Sonoma County’s LIDAR data was invaluable for identifying and mapping historical channel alignments to a high degree of precision. The Sonoma County Soil Survey (1972) was used to support the identification of seasonal wetlands from early aerial photos. Once the draft map was completed, field surveys were undertaken to “ground-truth” sites where historical conditions were in question and to test preliminary conclusions. In some cases, field evidence supported the mapping of features that appeared ambiguous in the historical record. In other cases, where field evidence was lacking, SONOMA VALLEY HISTORICAL HYDROLOGY MAPPING PROJECT, TASK 2.4.b: FINAL REPORT BASELINE CONSULTING, SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER, REBECCA LAWTON CONSULTING 4 features or attributes were removed from the draft map. A rubric for assigning “certainty levels” was refined from versions used in other studies (Dawson 2010, 2013; Grossinger 2001, 2012). This rubric was based on the strength of evidence for each mapped feature’s historical presence, dimensions, and location. Certainty levels of high, medium, and low were assigned under each of these categories to all mapped features. The final maps (pages 18 - 21) are based on dozens of historical sources, informed by similar studies in Sonoma County and elsewhere in the Bay Area, years of fieldwork and local observations, and the expertise of many scientists, residents, and local elders. More than 300 channel segments and wetland features were mapped. The resulting maps are key tools in understanding how the Sonoma Valley watershed functioned before significant human modification. Next Steps. Phase I of this project, which is covered in this report, provides a medium- resolution hydrological picture of the Sonoma Valley watershed in the mid-19th century. Phase II, the second and final part of this effort, will use the information developed in Phase I to identify sites that show promise for restoring hydrological function. SONOMA VALLEY These sites will be mapped at a high WATERSHED level of detail (1:18,000 or better) to support modeling, change analysis, and multi-benefit project planning designed to reduce flooding, increase groundwater retention and recharge, improve water quality, and restore habitat. This report is intended to assist the Sonoma County Water Agency, the North Coast Water Quality Control Board, Valley of the Moon Water District, the City of Sonoma, the Sonoma Ecology Center, the Sonoma Resource Conservation District, private landowners, and other stakeholders concerned with improving the ecological health of Sonoma Valley. FIGURE 1. Project Area. Sonoma Valley Watershed, Sonoma County, California SONOMA VALLEY HISTORICAL HYDROLOGY MAPPING PROJECT, TASK 2.4.b: FINAL REPORT BASELINE CONSULTING, SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER, REBECCA LAWTON CONSULTING 5 METHODS The Sonoma Valley Historical Hydrology Mapping Project was carried out by Arthur Dawson of Baseline Consulting, Alex Young of the Sonoma Ecology Center, and Rebecca Lawton of Rebecca Lawton Consulting. The following sequence of methods and steps was used in developing the estimated pre-settlement freshwater channels and wetlands map of the Sonoma Valley watershed. Initial Planning and Review. Project staff held an initial meeting to refine our approach and address the following questions. What is our working definition of a “mappable channel?” How can the recently acquired LIDAR data be incorporated into this effort? Do certainty level standards need to be adjusted, refined, and/or clarified? How should distributary systems be evaluated and mapped? What is our working definition of a “mappable wetland feature”? What criteria should be used for delineating various habitat types? Is our approach compatible with that used for mapping historical aquatic resources in the EcoAtlas? What should be included in the literature review? What are our definitions and assumptions (Figure 2)? The literature review (see Bibliography) preceded a review of previous efforts to map and understand historical conditions in Sonoma Valley, particularly the 2010 draft map from the CCA project. All features from the CCA map were reviewed. After identifying needed changes, it was decided that the most efficient way to proceed was to draw and attribute all features for the current project from scratch. Technical Guidance. Before commencing the initial mapping, the project team conferred with experts Laurel Collins, geomorphologist with Watershed Sciences; and Phillip Northen, wetland delineation expert and professor emeritus at Sonoma State University. Robin Grossinger of the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) was contacted but was unable to provide direct feedback on this project. Project staff are familiar with SFEI’s approach, having worked with them on the CCA mapping effort and reviewed their work in other Bay Area watersheds (see Bibliography). Source Compilation and Georectification. With one exception, all mapping sources (see Bibliography) for this project had already been compiled and were ready to bring into GIS for mapping. The exception was a map of the upper watershed recently discovered in the private collection of Kenwood resident George MacLeod (Rowe 1871). This map was an SONOMA VALLEY HISTORICAL HYDROLOGY MAPPING PROJECT, TASK 2.4.b: FINAL REPORT BASELINE CONSULTING, SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER, REBECCA LAWTON CONSULTING 6 Figure
Recommended publications
  • Sonoma County Rainfall Map (1.81MB)

    Sonoma County Rainfall Map (1.81MB)

    128 OAT VALLEY CREEK ALDER CREEK Mendocino County CREEK BIG SULPHUR CREEK CLOVERDALE 40 Cloverdale 29 60 CREEK OSSER CREEK PORTERFIELD SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY 45 40 LITTLE SULPHUR CREEK BUCKEYE CREEK 40 Lake County FLAT RIDGE CREEK 45 GUALALA RIVER 50 55 60 70 GRASSHOPPER CREEK 55 Sea Ranch 60 65 75 70 RANCHERIA CREEK LITTLE CREEK 55 50 GILL CREEK Annapolis 4 A SAUSAL CREEK 55 45 Lake STRAWBERRY CREEK Sonoma MILLER CREEK BURNS CREEK 50 TOMBS CREEK 45 65 WHEATFIELD Geyserville INGALLS CREEK FORK GUALALA-SALMON GUALALA-SALMON WOOD CREEK 1 GEORGE YOUNG CREEK BOYD CREEK MILL STREAM SOUTH FORK GUALALA BEAR CREEK FULLER CREEK COON CREEK 40 LITTLE BRIGGS CREEK RIVER 50 GIRD CREEK BRIGGS CREEK 7 A MAACAMA CREEK Jimtown WINE CREEK 6 A KELLOGG CREEK GRAIN CREEK HOUSE CREEK 60 CEDAR CREEK INDIANCREEK LANCASTER CREEK DANFIELD CREEK FALL CREEK OWL CREEK 40 Stewarts Point HOOT WOODS CREEK CRANE CREEK HAUPT CREEK YELLOWJACKET CREEK FOOTE CREEK REDWOOD CREEK GUALALA RIVER WALLACE CREEK 60 128 Lake JIM CREEK Berryessa ANGEL CREEK Healdsburg RUSSIAN RIVER SPROULE CREEK MILL CREEK DEVIL CREEK AUSTIN CREEK RUSSIAN RIVER SLOUGHWEST MARTIN CREEK BIG AUSTIN CREEK GILLIAM CREEK THOMPSON CREEK PALMER CREEK FELTA CREEK FRANZ CREEK BLUE JAY CREEK MCKENZIE CREEK BARNES CREEK BIG OAT CREEK Windsor MARK WEST CREEK COVE 75 WARD CREEK POOL CREEK PORTER CREEKMILL CREEK Fort Ross 80 HUMBUG CREEK TIMBER Cazadero STAR FIFE CREEK CREEK 55 PRUITT 45 HOBSON CREEK CREEK 50 NEAL CREEK 1 A 60 Hacienda REDWOOD CREEK RUSSIAN WIKIUP KIDD CREEK Guerneville CREEK VAN BUREN CREEK 101 RINCON CREEK RIVER 70 35 WEEKS CREEK 50 FULTON CREEK 65 BRUSH CREEK DUCKER CREEK GREEN COFFEYCREEK PINER CREEK 5 A VALLEY Forestville 60 CREEK CREEK RUSSELL BRUSH CREEK LAGUNA 55 Monte Rio CREEK AUSTIN BEAR CREEK RIVER CREEK GREEN FORESTVILLECREEK PAULIN CREEK DUTCH PINER CREEK Santa Rosa DE PETERSONCREEKFORESTVIEW SANTA ROSA CREEK OAKMONT STEELE VALLEY WENDELL CREEK CREEK BILL SANTA CREEK 45 SONOMA CREEK RUSSIAN GRUB CREEK SPRING CREEK LAWNDALECREEK 40 Napa County STATE HWY 116 COLLEGE CREEK CREEK HOOD MT.
  • Historic Context Statement City of Benicia February 2011 Benicia, CA

    Historic Context Statement City of Benicia February 2011 Benicia, CA

    Historic Context Statement City of Benicia February 2011 Benicia, CA Prepared for City of Benicia Department of Public Works & Community Development Prepared by page & turnbull, inc. 1000 Sansome Street, Ste. 200, San Francisco CA 94111 415.362.5154 / www.page-turnbull.com Benicia Historic Context Statement FOREWORD “Benicia is a very pretty place; the situation is well chosen, the land gradually sloping back from the water, with ample space for the spread of the town. The anchorage is excellent, vessels of the largest size being able to tie so near shore as to land goods without lightering. The back country, including the Napa and Sonoma Valleys, is one of the finest agriculture districts in California. Notwithstanding these advantages, Benicia must always remain inferior in commercial advantages, both to San Francisco and Sacramento City.”1 So wrote Bayard Taylor in 1850, less than three years after Benicia’s founding, and another three years before the city would—at least briefly—serve as the capital of California. In the century that followed, Taylor’s assessment was echoed by many authors—that although Benicia had all the ingredients for a great metropolis, it was destined to remain in the shadow of others. Yet these assessments only tell a half truth. While Benicia never became the great commercial center envisioned by its founders, its role in Northern California history is nevertheless one that far outstrips the scale of its geography or the number of its citizens. Benicia gave rise to the first large industrial works in California, hosted the largest train ferries ever constructed, and housed the West Coast’s primary ordnance facility for over 100 years.
  • University of California Santa Cruz NO SOMOS ANIMALES

    University of California Santa Cruz NO SOMOS ANIMALES

    University of California Santa Cruz NO SOMOS ANIMALES: INDIGENOUS SURVIVAL AND PERSEVERANCE IN 19TH CENTURY SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in HISTORY with emphases in AMERICAN STUDIES and LATIN AMERICAN & LATINO STUDIES by Martin Adam Rizzo September 2016 The Dissertation of Martin Adam Rizzo is approved: ________________________________ Professor Lisbeth Haas, Chair _________________________________ Professor Amy Lonetree _________________________________ Professor Matthew D. O’Hara ________________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright ©by Martin Adam Rizzo 2016 Table of Contents List of Figures iv Abstract vii Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1 Chapter 1: “First were taken the children, and then the parents followed” 24 Chapter 2: “The diverse nations within the mission” 98 Chapter 3: “We are not animals” 165 Chapter 4: Captain Coleto and the Rise of the Yokuts 215 Chapter 5: ”Not finding anything else to appropriate...” 261 Chapter 6: “They won’t try to kill you if they think you’re already dead” 310 Conclusion 370 Appendix A: Indigenous Names 388 Bibliography 398 iii List of Figures 1.1: Indigenous tribal territories 33 1.2: Contemporary satellite view 36 1.3: Total number baptized by tribe 46 1.4: Approximation of Santa Cruz mountain tribal territories 48 1.5: Livestock reported near Mission Santa Cruz 75 1.6: Agricultural yields at Mission Santa Cruz by year 76 1.7: Baptisms by month, through
  • Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Coast Miwok and Their Neighbors, 1783-1840

    Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Coast Miwok and Their Neighbors, 1783-1840

    ETHNOHISTORY AND ETHNOGEOGRAPHY OF THE COAST MIWOK AND THEIR NEIGHBORS, 1783-1840 by Randall Milliken Technical Paper presented to: National Park Service, Golden Gate NRA Cultural Resources and Museum Management Division Building 101, Fort Mason San Francisco, California Prepared by: Archaeological/Historical Consultants 609 Aileen Street Oakland, California 94609 June 2009 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents the locations of Spanish-contact period Coast Miwok regional and local communities in lands of present Marin and Sonoma counties, California. Furthermore, it documents previously unavailable information about those Coast Miwok communities as they struggled to survive and reform themselves within the context of the Franciscan missions between 1783 and 1840. Supplementary information is provided about neighboring Southern Pomo-speaking communities to the north during the same time period. The staff of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) commissioned this study of the early native people of the Marin Peninsula upon recommendation from the report’s author. He had found that he was amassing a large amount of new information about the early Coast Miwoks at Mission Dolores in San Francisco while he was conducting a GGNRA-funded study of the Ramaytush Ohlone-speaking peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula. The original scope of work for this study called for the analysis and synthesis of sources identifying the Coast Miwok tribal communities that inhabited GGNRA parklands in Marin County prior to Spanish colonization. In addition, it asked for the documentation of cultural ties between those earlier native people and the members of the present-day community of Coast Miwok. The geographic area studied here reaches far to the north of GGNRA lands on the Marin Peninsula to encompass all lands inhabited by Coast Miwoks, as well as lands inhabited by Pomos who intermarried with them at Mission San Rafael.
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000

    MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000

    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
  • Costumes.Pdf

    Costumes.Pdf

    Historical People, Characters During the 1830-40’s there were various people who were in Sonoma and at Rancho de Petaluma. There is not a lot of written documentation that we have found about the women or wives of the men. We have tried our best to include good resources in the bibliography, but often the descriptions and details we desire for the role playing exercises are missing. We understand that there might be a lot of “creative” attributes given to the characters, however, we ask that the children stay within the realm of the possible. We are constantly searching for sources and ask for your help. Two resources are especially good on descriptions of the people and the period. Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana A “journal” of a man’s experience at sea during the hide and tallow trade. His descriptions of the trade and process are excellent. As well, his description of the clothing and hairstyles of those in Monterey is very detailed. 75 Years in California by William Heath Davis A historian who actually visited the sites he wrote about. His book is still considered one of the best historical accounts of the time period for which he wrote. He did visit Rancho de Petaluma and wrote about it within the book. Mariano and Francisca Vallejo had 16 children together. Of these 16, 10 lived to adulthood. We don’t include the 6 who died in the historical figures list, but they are included on the Vallejo Family page. As well, some of the information about the family occurred after the dates of 1836-1846, which is the time period for Rancho de Petaluma.
  • Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds

    Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds

    Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds Presentation Summaries (in order of appearance) Gary Stern, National Marine Fisheries Service Steelhead as Threatened Species: The Status of the Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), a "species" is defined to include "any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." To assist NMFS apply this definition of "species to Pacific salmon stocks, an interim policy established the use of "evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) it must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units; and (2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The listing of steelhead as "threatened" in the California Central Coast resulted from a petition filed in February 1994. In response to the petition, NMFS conducted a West Coast-wide status review to identify all steelhead ESU’s in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. There were two tiers to the review: (1) regional expertise was used to determine the status of all streams with regard to steelhead; and (2) a biological review team was assembled to review the regional team's data. Evidence used in this process included data on precipitation, annual hydrographs, monthly peak flows, water temperatures, native freshwater fauna, major vegetation types, ocean upwelling, and smolt and adult out-migration (i.e., size, age and time of migration). Steelhead within San Francisco Bay tributaries are included in the Central California Coast ESU.
  • On the Ethnolinguistic Identity of the Napa Tribe: the Implications of Chief Constancio Occaye's Narratives As Recorded by Lorenzo G

    On the Ethnolinguistic Identity of the Napa Tribe: the Implications of Chief Constancio Occaye's Narratives As Recorded by Lorenzo G

    UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Title On the Ethnolinguistic Identity of the Napa Tribe: The Implications of Chief Constancio Occaye's Narratives as Recorded by Lorenzo G. Yates Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3k52g07t Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 26(2) ISSN 0191-3557 Author Johnson, John R Publication Date 2006 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology | Vol. 26, No. 2 (2006) | pp. 193-204 REPORTS On the Ethnolinguistic of foUdore, preserved by Yates, represent some of the only knovra tradhions of the Napa tribe, and are thus highly Identity of the Napa Tribe: sigiuficant for anthropologists mterested m comparative The Implications of oral hterature in Native California. Furthermore, the Chief Constancio Occaye^s native words m these myths suggest that a reappraisal of Narratives as Recorded the ethnohnguistic identhy of the Napa people may be by Lorenzo G. Yates in order. BACKGROUND JOHN R. JOHNSON Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Lorenzo Gordin Yates (1837-1909) was an English 2559 Puesta del Sol, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 immigrant who came to the United States as a teenager. He became a dentist by profession, but bad a lifelong About 1876, Lorenzo G. Yates interviewed Constancio passion for natural history. Yates moved his famUy from Occaye, described as the last "Chief of the Napas," and Wisconsm to California in 1864 and settled m CentreviUe recorded several items of folklore from his tribe. Yates in Alameda County, which later became a district of included Constancio's recollections about the use of Fremont.
  • A Historic Resource Evaluation of the Property Located at 19315 Highway 12, Sonoma, Sonoma County, California

    A Historic Resource Evaluation of the Property Located at 19315 Highway 12, Sonoma, Sonoma County, California

    Agenda Item #9.1: A HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19315 HIGHWAY 12, SONOMA, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: Andrew Dobbs-Kramer Licensing and Compliance Director SPARC SUBMITTED BY: Stacey De Shazo, M.A. Principal Architectural Historian [email protected] Evans & De Shazo, Inc 1141 Gravenstein Highway South, Sebastopol, CA 95472 707-823-7400 March 25, 2021 www.evans-deshazo.com Page 170 of 353 Agenda Item #9.1: Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 PROPERTY LOCATION ............................................................................................................................... 1 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................................. 2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .................................................................................................................... 2 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Cultural Resource Inventories ............................................................................................................................. 4 Online Research ................................................................................................................................................. 4 HISTORICAL
  • Sonoma County

    Sonoma County

    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration SONOMA COUNTY Petaluma River Watershed The Petaluma River watershed lies within portions of Marin and Sonoma Counties. The river flows in a northwesterly to southeasterly direction into San Pablo Bay. Petaluma River In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that the Petaluma River was an historical migration route and habitat for steelhead (Skinner 1962). At that time, the creek was said to be “lightly used” as steelhead habitat (Skinner 1962). In July 1968, DFG surveyed portions of the Petaluma River accessible by automobile from the upstream limit of tidal influence to the headwaters. No O. mykiss were observed (Thomson and Michaels 1968d). Leidy electrofished upstream from the Corona Road crossing in July 1993. No salmonids were found (Leidy 2002). San Antonio Creek San Antonio Creek is a tributary of Petaluma River and drains an area of approximately 12 square miles. The channel is the border between Sonoma and Marin Counties. In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that San Antonio Creek was an historical migration route for steelhead (Skinner 1962).
  • Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, Circa 1852-1904

    Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, Circa 1852-1904

    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb109nb422 Online items available Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Finding Aid written by Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Documents BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM 1 Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in Cali... Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California Finding Aid Written By: Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt. Date Completed: March 2008 © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Documents pertaining to the adjudication of private land claims in California Date (inclusive): circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892 Microfilm: BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM Creators : United States. District Court (California) Extent: Number of containers: 857 Cases. 876 Portfolios. 6 volumes (linear feet: Approximately 75)Microfilm: 200 reels10 digital objects (1494 images) Repository: The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Abstract: In 1851 the U.S.
  • How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, and the Colonial Roots of California, 1846 – 1879

    How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, and the Colonial Roots of California, 1846 – 1879

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2019 How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, And The Colonial Roots Of California, 1846 – 1879 Camille Alexandrite Suárez University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Suárez, Camille Alexandrite, "How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, And The Colonial Roots Of California, 1846 – 1879" (2019). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 3491. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/3491 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/3491 For more information, please contact [email protected]. How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, And The Colonial Roots Of California, 1846 – 1879 Abstract The construction of California as an American state was a colonial project premised upon Indigenous removal, state-supported land dispossession, the perpetuation of unfree labor systems and legal, race- based discrimination alongside successful Anglo-American settlement. This dissertation, entitled “How the West was Won: Race, Citizenship, and the Colonial Roots of California, 1849 - 1879” argues that the incorporation of California and its diverse peoples into the U.S. depended on processes of colonization that produced and justified an adaptable acialr hierarchy that protected white privilege and supported a racially-exclusive conception of citizenship. In the first section, I trace how the California Constitution and federal and state legislation violated the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This legal system empowered Anglo-American migrants seeking territorial, political, and economic control of the region by allowing for the dispossession of Californio and Indigenous communities and legal discrimination against Californio, Indigenous, Black, and Chinese persons.