DOCSLIB.ORG

Mckee, L., R. Grossinger, E. Brewster, R. Dale, C. Corwall, R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mckee, L., R. Grossinger, E. Brewster, R. Dale, C. Corwall, R Completed draft for review 1 Summary of existing information in the Watershed of Sonoma Valley in relation to the Sonoma Creek Watershed Restoration Study and Recommendations on How to Proceed Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District by the San Francisco Estuary Institute and Sonoma Ecology Center V.2 December 2000 Completed draft for review 2 Bibliographic information This report should be referenced in the following manner: McKee, L., Grossinger, R., Brewster, E., Dale, R., Cornwall, C., Hunter, R., and Lawton, R. 2000. Summary of existing information in the watershed of Sonoma Valley in relation to the Sonoma Creek Watershed Restoration Study and recommendations on how to proceed. A report prepared by San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) and Sonoma Ecology Center (SEC) for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. San Francisco Estuary Institute, December 2000. Completed draft for review 3 Table of contents Page Section 1 7 Summary, Scope, and historical timeline Executive Summary 8 Introduction and acknowledgements 16 Objectives for this document 18 A brief history of Sonoma Creek - relationships of people to the landscape 19 Section 2 25 Sonoma Creek Watershed Characteristics Introduction 26 Geology 26 Soils 28 Topography 29 Upper watershed 29 Marshlands 29 Watershed vegetation and land-use 31 Middle and upper watershed 31 Historical 31 Contemporary 31 Baylands 34 Historical 34 Contemporary 35 Riparian vegetation 36 Invasive Species 36 Middle and upper watershed 36 Baylands 37 Section 3 38 Weather, Climate, and Runoff General description 39 Rainfall 39 Rainfall records 39 Drought years and wet years 41 Monthly Rainfall variation 43 Frequency, depth and magnitude 43 Surface discharge 48 General description of data 48 Annual discharge 51 Normalized discharge and runoff coefficients 51 Dry season runoff 55 Watershed response to storm rainfall 57 Return period of floods 62 Flooding and inundation 64 Discussion of freshwater runoff issues 65 Definition of the flooding problem 65 Rainfall and runoff 66 Water delivery, collection, and treatment systems 71 Groundwater 71 Completed draft for review 4 Section 4 73 Tide gauge location, height, and tide induced flow Introduction 74 Location of Gauges 74 Tidal velocity measurements 75 Section 5 79 Water quality and sediment quality Water quality 80 Watershed 80 North San Pablo Bay and the Sonoma tidal channels 83 Sediment quality in the Sonoma Baylands 86 Section 6 87 Watershed and Baylands Fauna In-stream freshwater biota 88 Historical 88 Contemporary 88 Freshwater fisheries habitat and spawning sites 91 Estuarine biota spatial extent 92 Bird life, temporal and spatial extent 93 Historical 93 Contemporary 93 Section 7 95 Causes of flooding Introduction 96 Hypotheses 96 Section 8 99 Restoration projects: Historical and contemporary Review of the history of mitigation options 100 Sonoma Ecology Center restoration projects 102 Introduction 102 Past and current SEC Projects 102 Future SEC Projects 105 Options or issues in relation to habitat restoration in the lower Sonoma Creek watershed 110 Section 9 115 Guiding Principles for successful flood control and restoration Strong community involvement 116 Historical Landscape Ecology 118 What was the character of the historic system and how did we got to where we are today? 118 Integrated watershed approach 122 Integrated Bayland approach 123 Benefit to Habitats and Species of the Watershed 124 Preserving locations of importance 125 Completed draft for review 5 Section 10 126 Limitations of existing data Hydrology 127 Geomorphology and Water Quality 129 Biology 131 Riparian Conditions 131 Sensitive Species and Habitats 132 Steelhead and California freshwater shrimp 133 Benthic macro-invertebrates 133 Section 11 134 Recommendations for projects and estimated costs Introduction 135 Projects and Costs 137 Section 12 140 References Section 13 149 Appendices Appendix 1. Potential historical resources 150 Appendix 2. SFEI existing historical document list 155 Appendix 3. GIS coverage’s held by SEC 163 Completed draft for review 6 List of figure and tables Figures Page Figure 1. Sonoma Creek watershed including the Baylands 27 Figure 2. Sub-watershed boundaries in the Sonoma Creek watershed 30 Figure 3. Sonoma Creek watershed land use designations 33 Figure 4. Rainfall recorded for the City of Sonoma 40 Figure 5. Accumulative deviation from the mean calculated for rainfall in Sonoma 42 Figure 6. Monthly variation in rainfall for selected location in the North Bay 44 Figure 7. Relationship between rainfall falling at Sonoma and Petaluma Fire Station 45 Figure 8. Relationship between rainfall at Sonoma and rainfall at Napa 46 Figure 9. Duration and magnitude of rainfall for a given return period in the City of Sonoma 47 Figure 10. Sonoma Ecology Center Water Quality & Quantity Monitoring Sites 49 Figure 11. Daily runoff on Sonoma Creek at the discontinued runoff measuring point at Agua Caliente 52 Figure 12. Annual area normalized runoff variation for the period of record at Agua Caliente 53 Figure 13. Annual runoff coefficients for Sonoma Creek at Agua Caliente 54 Figure 14. An analysis of dry season flow at Agua Caliente 56 Figure 15. January 1967 storm in Sonoma Creek watershed 58 Figure 16. December 1955 storm in Sonoma Creek watershed 60 Figure 17. December 1965 / January 1966 storm in Sonoma Creek watershed 61 Figure 18. Return interval of floods in the North Bay watersheds for a selection of gauging stations 63 Figure 19. The effect of urbanization on peak runoff 68 Figure 20. A simple analysis of flood peaks based on the annual series for the Napa River near Napa 69 Figure 21. A simple analysis of flood peaks based on the annual series for the Napa River near Saint Helena. 70 Figure 22. A conceptual diagram for information gathering and determining option for the future 136 Tables Table 1. A timeline of events pertaining to the human relationship to the Sonoma Creek watershed 21 environment Table 2. Discharge characteristics of the Sonoma Creek watershed as determined in the 1960’s 52 Table 3. Historic data from Anon. (late 1950’s) describing runoff character in Sonoma Creek watershed 59 Table 4. Water quality collection points of Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District - NPDES Self- 83 Monitoring Program Table 5. The occurrence of fish species in freshwater areas of Sonoma Creek watershed 90 Table 6. Occurrence of fish in tidal areas of the Sonoma Creek watershed 92 Table 7. A history of the options and recommendations for dealing with flooding issues in the lower 100 Sonoma Creek watershed Table 8. Description of the importance of historical analysis in ecosystem process research, watershed 121 management plan design, and implementation of restoration projects Completed draft for review 7 Section 1 Summary, Scope, and historical timeline Completed draft for review 8 Executive Summary This report illustrates the variety of data available in relation to the future possibility of carrying out projects that aim to reduce flood hazard and restore or enhance environmental values in the Sonoma Creek watershed and Baylands. This report is meant to be a starting point for information and recommendations rather than an endpoint. Although it contains over 150 pages of text, figures and tables it does not claim to be complete. Instead it aims to stimulate discussion by asking as many questions as it answers. This report is one of two documents. The second document is the verbatim minutes of the technical advisory committee meeting held at Atwood Ranch on August 30th 2000. Both documents are available from San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) or from the SFEI web page (www.sfei.org) in pdf format. There are five strong principles that have been reinforced during this review of information and during the technical advisory meeting: 1. That there be a strong community involvement, and this should drive the process of identifying potential actions. Community involvement includes: o Gathering and recording community opinions on what, if anything, should be done. o Community representation from all over the watershed and this should be encouraged at all stages, because the solutions are likely to involve the whole watershed community. o Gathering and recording both historical and contemporary environmental knowledge. o Consultation throughout the science and decision making phases. o Education about why any scientific, engineering or management alternatives are proposed so that the community is able to help make choices. 2. That the approaches to flood mitigation and environmental restoration consider the watershed as a whole. No single project will be able to achieve any substantial reduction in peak flow, total flood event discharge or flood routing. Instead, many small projects taking a variety of approaches across the whole watershed and Baylands would be more Completed draft for review 9 likely to provide ecosystem benefits, as well as achieving a reduction, or at least no increases, in flood risk in a bottom-up / top-of-the-watershed down approach. 3. That any Baylands projects consider the Napa / Sonoma Marsh as a whole. The Napa Sonoma Marsh system in linked closely both in space and time. Any changes in one “side” of the system are likely to affect the other “side” (physically, chemically and biologically). 4. That many options for reductions in flooding in the lower watershed are also consistent with the preservation or improvement of habitat, species numbers, and species diversity in the whole watershed. For example, planting and managing riparian vegetation to improve riparian connectivity and structure will reduce flooding in the lower watershed by slowing down the flood wave and increasing groundwater recharge. It will also improve habitat quality for fish, birds and invertebrates by decreasing water temperature, increasing in-stream habitat diversity, increasing carbon supply to the streams, and decreasing bank erosion. This intern will improve the environment for the people that live in and visit the watershed by providing a tranquil intact connection to the environment that can be enjoyed now and by future generations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Assessment of Tolay Creek Restoration, San Pablo Bay
    An Elevation and Climate Change Assessment of the Tolay Creek Restoration, San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge U. S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center Data Summary Report Prepared for the California Landscape Conservation Cooperative and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuges John Y. Takekawa, Karen M. Thorne, Kevin J. Buffington, and Chase M. Freeman Tolay Creek Restoration i An Elevation and Climate Change Assessment of the Tolay Creek Restoration, San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center Data Summary Report Prepared for California Landscape Conservation Cooperative and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuges John Y. Takekawa, Karen M. Thorne, Kevin J. Buffington, and Chase M. Freeman 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, San Francisco Bay Estuary Field Station, 505 Azuar Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 USA 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, 3020 State University Dr. East, Modoc Hall Suite 2007, Sacramento, CA 95819 USA For more information contact: John Y. Takekawa, PhD Karen M. Thorne, PhD U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center Western Ecological Research Center 505 Azuar Dr. 3020 State University Dr. East Vallejo, CA 94592 Modoc Hall, Suite 2007 Tel: (707) 562-2000 Sacramento, CA 95819 [email protected] Tel: (916)-278-9417 [email protected] Suggested Citation: Takekawa, J. Y., K. M. Thorne, K. J. Buffington, and C. M. Freeman. 2014. An elevation and climate change assessment of the Tolay Creek restoration, San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished Data Summary Report. U. S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Vallejo, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • Sears Point Geologic
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA- GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY THE RESOURCES AGENCY- MARY NICHOLS, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES JAMES F. DAVIS, STATE GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION- DARRYL YOUNG, DIRECTOR GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE Qhf Qof QTu Qhf Qhty Qhly Qhc Qof Tsvm SEARS POINT 7.5' QUADRANGLE Qhf Qhc Qhty Qhc Qof Qhf Qof af QTu Qhc 30 Qhc 20 Tpu Qhf SONOMA, SOLANO, AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA: A DIGITAL DATABASE QTu Qof Th 35 Qhly af Qhty Qof Qha VERSION 1.0 1 Qhty Tpu Tp? By 50 Tsvm 20 Qf Qhbm 1 2 1 2 1 Qof David L. Wagner , Carolyn E. Randolph-Loar , Stephen P. Bezore , Robert C. Witter , and James Allen Tp? af Tsvm Tpu? Qof 49 1 Th 43 Qha Digital Database Qof Qha alf Qhbm 70 Unit Explanation by 1 1 55 Qhbm Jason D. Little and Victoria D. Walker Tsvm Qof (See Knudsen and others (2000), for more information on Qf 2002 30 Quaternary units). Tpu 40 Tp? Qhbm af Artificial fill Qhty Tpu Qhay afbm af 1. California Geological Survey, 801 K st. MS 12-31, Sacramento, CA 95814 Qof Qhbm 30 Qhf af Tsvt 2. William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 1777 Botello Drive, Suite 262 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tsvm Tsvm alf Tsvm Tsvm alf Qhbm afbm Artificial fill placed over bay mud 80 Tsvt? Tsvm Qhbm Qls Qhay 80 Qls Tsvt Qhbm Qhbm Qhbm Artificial levee fill Qhf alf 35 45 Tsvt Tsvt Tsvm 40 Tsvm Tsvt Qhbm Qhf 20 Qls Qhbm Qha af Qhc Late Holocene to modern (<150 years) stream channel deposits in active, natural KJfm Franciscan Complex melange.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
    The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Management Board Bay Area Audubon Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Institute The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Bay Planning Coalition California State Coastal Conservancy Celebrating years of partnerships protecting wetlands and wildlife California Department of Fish and Game California Resources Agency 15 Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Ducks Unlimited National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company PRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Estuary Partnership Save the Bay Sierra Club U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Wildlife Conservation Board 735B Center Boulevard, Fairfax, CA 94930 415-259-0334 www.sfbayjv.org www.yourwetlands.org The San Francisco Bay Area is breathtaking! As Chair of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, I would like to personally thank our partners It’s no wonder so many of us live here – 7.15 million of us, according to the 2010 census. Each one of us has our for their ongoing support of our critical mission and goals in honor of our 15 year anniversary. own mental image of “the Bay Area.” For some it may be the place where the Pacific Ocean flows beneath the This retrospective is a testament to the significant achievements we’ve made together. I look Golden Gate Bridge, for others it might be somewhere along the East Bay Regional Parks shoreline, or from one forward to the next 15 years of even bigger wins for wetland habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Mitigation Plan
    Flood Mitigation Plan (June 2008) CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN ........................................................ 2 SECTION I - PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................... 17 Part 1 - Process Organization .................................................................................................................................... 17 Planning Process Documentation ............................................................................................................................. 17 Jurisdictional Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Process Description ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Part 2 - Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Flood Mitigation Planning Committee .................................................................................................................... 22 Public Participation Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 48 Results and Recommendations from Community & Stakeholders ........................................................................ 48
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge San Pablo Bay National the Tidal Wetlands
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge San Pablo Bay National the tidal wetlands. Wildlife Refuge can offer The refuge provides vital stretches of knee-high habitat for threatened and pickleweed, open bay endangered species, as well waters with rafts of as millions of migrating Canvasback ducks riding waterfowl, shorebirds and the currents, and the our local resident wildlife. timeless ebb and flow of Pickleweed © Peter Baye Welcome 121 More than 300 species of By the 1950s, only 25 percent of the wildlife can be found in the historical tidal marshes remained in Vallejo greater San Francisco Bay the estuary. Today, only 15 percent 37 estuary which includes of the bay’s historic tidal lands remain. San Pablo Bay NWR San Pablo Bay. Most use San Pablo Bay the estuary as a resting, Partnerships – Since the 1960s, conservation San feeding or wintering stop Our Roots agencies, non-profit organizations and Rafael 101 80 during their Pacific local grassroot efforts have worked to 580 Richmond Flyway migration. protect the Bay for its significance to migratory birds and resident wildlife. 580 San Pablo Bay National The northern Bay’s Napa-Sonoma Wildlife Refuge was Marshes are jointly managed with the 80 Oakland established in 1974 to California Department of Fish and Pacific 580 conserve, restore and Game. The Lower Tubbs Island Unit Ocean 101 San protect bay wetlands for was acquired with assistance from The Francisco San endangered species and Nature Conservancy. While the Solano AreaArea of 1 map Francisco Shown Bay migratory birds. County Farmlands and Open Space CALIFORNIA Foundation and California State USGS A variety of habitats can be found on Lower Tubbs Coastal Conservancy helped acquire the refuge along the north shore of the Cullinan Ranch/Napa Marsh Unit.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    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 TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Species and Community Profiles to Six Clutches of Eggs, Totaling About 861 Eggs During California Vernal Pool Tadpole Her Lifetime (Ahl 1991)
    3 Invertebrates their effects on this species are currently being investi- Franciscan Brine Shrimp gated (Maiss and Harding-Smith 1992). Artemia franciscana Kellogg Reproduction, Growth, and Development Invertebrates Brita C. Larsson Artemia franciscana has two types of reproduction, ovovi- General Information viparous and oviparous. In ovoviviparous reproduction, the fertilized eggs in a female can develop into free-swim- The Franciscan brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana (for- ming nauplii, which are set free by the mother. In ovipa- merly salina) (Bowen et al. 1985, Bowen and Sterling rous reproduction, however, the eggs, when reaching the 1978, Barigozzi 1974), is a small crustacean found in gastrula stage, become surrounded by a thick shell and highly saline ponds, lakes or sloughs that belong to the are deposited as cysts, which are in diapause (Sorgeloos order Anostraca (Eng et al. 1990, Pennak 1989). They 1980). In the Bay area, cysts production is generally are characterized by stalked compound eyes, an elongate highest during the fall and winter, when conditions for body, and no carapace. They have 11 pairs of swimming Artemia development are less favorable. The cysts may legs and the second antennae are uniramous, greatly en- persist for decades in a suspended state. Under natural larged and used as a clasping organ in males. The aver- conditions, the lifespan of Artemia is from 50 to 70 days. age length is 10 mm (Pennak 1989). Brine shrimp com- In the lab, females produced an average of 10 broods, monly swim with their ventral side upward. A. franciscana but the average under natural conditions may be closer lives in hypersaline water (70 to 200 ppt) (Maiss and to 3-4 broods, although this has not been confirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project
    Environmental Assessment For Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project September 2014 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Need 1.2 Public Participation 1.3 Organization of this EA 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Alternatives Considered 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Protected and Special-Status Species 3.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 3.1.2 Special Status Fish 3.2.3 Special Status Plants 3.2 Climate 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 4.1.2 Special Status Fish 4.1.3 Special Status Plants 4.2.1 Climate 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING 6.0 CUMULATIVE AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 6.1 Baseline Conditions for Cumulative Impacts Analysis 6.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 6.3 Resources Discussed and Geographic Study Areas 6.4 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis 7.0 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS 2 I. Executive Summary Ducks Unlimited requested funding through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Community-based Restoration Program (CRP) for restoration of a 960 acre site that is part of Sears Point Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Project . The Sonoma Land Trust (SLT), a non-profit organization, purchased the 2,327-acre properties collectively known as Sears Point in 2004 and 2005, and is the recipient of a number of grants for its restoration. In April of 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the STL and the California Department of Fish and Game published a final Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Impact Report (SPWWRP) / Environmental Impact Statement that assess the environmental impacts of restoration of Sears Point (State Clearinghouse #2007102037).
    [Show full text]