DOCSLIB.ORG

WOOLY MAMMOTH MARSH and Cliff Swallows Attach Their Mud Nests to Building Exteriors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WOOLY MAMMOTH MARSH and Cliff Swallows Attach Their Mud Nests to Building Exteriors HAUNTED HANGARS YOUR INDEPENDENT SOURCE FOR BAY-DELTA NEWS & VIEWS The long-awaited restoration of the tidal marshes on the Bay side of Hamilton Field finally got under way this April, when the Army Corps of Engineers began pumping dredged material from Bel Marin Keys onto the former airstrip. After the ground surface has been raised to sea level, requiring 7 mil- lion cubic yards of sediment, levees will be breached to let in the waters of San Pablo Bay. The ultimate goal: recreating habitat for California clapper rails, black rails, and other sensitive species. But the former Air Force base has a full complement of other avian residents as well. Acorn woodpeckers, western blue- birds, American kestrels, and other species frequent Hamilton’s oak-covered hills. Barn WOOLY MAMMOTH MARSH and cliff swallows attach their mud nests to building exteriors. And two of the old hangars that once housed B-17s are now Maps don’t lie, and the one Peggy Olofson Invasive spartina can completely change the roosting sites for barn owls. The nocturnal points to—of restoration and mitigation wet- character of a marsh, says wetlands ecologist raptors nest in Canary Island date palms lands around the Bay that have been invaded Peter Baye. It raises the elevation of the marsh, near the hangars. by Atlantic cordgrass—tells a gruesome story. changes its overall profile, and encourages “Hamilton after dark is full of the “We have a history of wetland restoration pro- marsh growth toward the Bay even where an screeches, screams, squawks, and clicks of jects over the last 30 years in large part being area is eroding, because it tolerates higher wave the barn owl,” says Maggie Rufo with Marin responsible for the rapid spread of invasive energy and traps sediment more efficiently than WildCare’s Hungry Owl Project. WildCare spartina,” declared the Invasive Spartina the native S. foliosa. The marsh then grows at a and HOP have taken care of juvenile owls Project’s Olofson at a recent status report meet- higher elevation than the tidal flats, says Baye. that have fallen from the palm trees— ing on the Estuary. Spartina alterniflora was Two marshes that have been greatly altered are attractive but unsafe nesting sites. likely introduced for the first time in the 1970s Arrowhead Marsh, which formerly had “lots of Most of Hamilton’s hangars have been when the Army Corps created a large wetland sinuous channels, marsh plains and pans,” converted into commercial or public spaces. dredge disposal project (“Pond 3”) adjacent to according to Olofson, and Martin Luther King With those last two slated for conversion, the Alameda Creek flood control channel in the marsh. Arrowhead had a few patches of invasive HOP has been working with the developer, South Bay. From there the seeds traveled to spartina, says Olofson, but when MLK Marsh Barker Pacific, and the City of Novato to nearby wetlands, and ultimately to more recent was created nearby (mitigation for the Port of provide alternate housing for the owls, to restoration projects such as Eden Landing and Oakland’s dredging activities), S. alterniflora and encourage them to stick around. They’ll pay Cooley Landing. In 1998, Cargill Salt created a hybrids made their way into MLK and then their “rent” in pest-control services: a family mitigation marsh; by 2002, it contained over started pumping additional seed back out into of five can consume 3,000 rodents in one 50% hybrid spartina species, says Olofson. Arrowhead, San Leandro Creek, and the sur- nesting season. For now (and through 2011), the Invasive rounding shoreline marshes, exacerbating the Next boxes custom-built for barn owls Spartina Project is acting as “cleanup crew,” problem throughout San Leandro Bay. MLK have been installed on Reservoir Hill and at attempting to stem, with the help of the herbi- Marsh is so thick with spartina it looks like a the old base hospital. There are owl boxes cide imazapyr, what Olofson calls the “hybrid “wooly mammoth,” says Olofson, while the at the Novato Charter School and the Unity swarm,” the virulent spread of S. alterniflora and increased growth of invasive spartina at in Marin spiritual community. Rufo says hybrids. The plants reproduce readily and Arrowhead altered the hundred-year old marsh, there’s a high occupancy rate; owls have spread easily, like a virus gone wild or some- says Olofson. “You’re never going to see those moved into 75-80% of the dozen boxes set thing out of a 1950s horror show. Olofson marsh pans again.” up so far. explains that S. alterniflora sets seed within two Pans are part of the unique ecology of a West For more information on barn owls and years, produces pollen after its second year, and Coast tidal marsh—containing (moving land- owl boxes, visit www.hungryowl.org. JE then pollinates the natives around it, leading to ward) tidal flats, native cordgrass (Spartina hybrid spartina species that are even more inva- foliosa), pickleweed and other marsh plants, and sive than pure S. alterniflora. “The parent uplands—that animals like the California clapper plants—one S. alterniflora and one S. foliosa— rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, many shorebirds, INSIDE cross-pollinate; their offspring [a hybrid] and others are adapted to. Clapper rails forage backcrosses with the parents, and then with in the dendritic channels of the marsh while each other; you’ve got genes in all combina- shorebirds pluck their way through the mud- HOW I SEE IT Toxic Trespass . .2 tions, combinations that have never been flats. Although clapper rails have taken a liking dreamed of before. It’s a great lesson in genetic to the thick cover of S. alterniflora in some SUPPLY adaptation.” Ironically, all of the recent restora- areas, in the long run, dense meadows of the Every Last Drop . .3 tion activity has helped facilitate spread of the long grass could harm the rails and other plants. “Restoration sites are perfect incuba- species, says wetlands biologist Phyllis Faber. ENVIRONMENT tors,” says Olofson. The bare, moist, newly Debunking Levee Lore . .4-5 After Olofson spoke at the report card ses- graded soils are an open invitation to invasives. sion, there was a palpable pall in the room, and Places to Go, Things to Do . .7 continued page 6 VOLUME 16, NO. 5 OCTOBER 2007 2 OCT 2007 sites within the San Joaquin Valley since 1983. HOW I SEE IT Every year from 1983 to 2006, eggs exceeding BURNINGISSUE the Fish & Wildlife selenium toxicity threshold cri- REGULATORS NEED TO STOP teria have been documented. SMELT HELP THE TOXIC TRESPASS At the same time, four species of small mam- mals have been found to have both sexes. Fish I was a biologist with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife A multi-pronged effort to save the rapidly populations have been impacted by reduced Service assigned to look into emerging issues sur- dwindling Delta smelt population is under growth and partial or complete reproductive fail- rounding agricultural drainage and wastewater. In way in courtrooms, laboratories, and along ure. Water rights have been rendered unusable. 1983 I held in my hand the first deformed migra- the banks of the Delta itself. One such Public trust properties and interests have been tory bird, an American coot hatchling, found at attempt was a groundbreaking legal deci- degraded, and the viability of the San Joaquin Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge. The cause of sion, in late August, in which U.S. District River and its tributaries impaired. This pollution the deformity was selenium toxicity. Selenium at Court Judge Oliver Wanger ordered state creates multiple long-term problems for water very low concentrations was accumulating to toxic and federal water agencies to either reduce supply, water quality, and the viability of aquatic levels in the aquatic food chain in the evaporation pumping or release more water upstream of resources and ecosystems, and degrades public ponds where the adult birds fed. the Delta to maintain a flow sufficient to trust assets and beneficial uses. Can a partial cause keep smelt from being sucked into the In 1984, the State Water Resources Control of the Delta’s pelagic organism decline be traced pumps. The ruling could cut the amount of Board stated that “[f]ailure to take appropriate to a selenium-contaminated habitat? measures to minimize excess application, excess water diverted from the Delta by one-third. When a use of water degrades the sustainability incidental losses, or degradation of water quality And that will most certainly mean that users of a downstream ecosystem or a component of constitutes unreasonable use of water.” In 1985, it up and down the state will have to conserve that ecosystem so that it is unsuitable for sustain- found that agricultural drainage and wastewater water in what has been a very dry year. ing viable agriculture or populations of wildlife, reaching Kesterson Reservoir resulted in dead and Dry years like this one confuse the smelt, fish and other aquatic life; or that results in fish deformed hatchlings of migratory birds. The State says the U.S. EPA’s Bruce Herbold. The unsuitable for human consumption; or that is a Board said that the agricultural drainage “is creat- smelt swim in bursts to get to areas of the hazard to other fish and wildlife; or that degrades ing and threatening to create conditions of Delta where they can drift toward the Bay ecological, aesthetic, and recreational uses and pollution and nuisance” and warned that if and feed. They determine when they swim scenic values, it is inconsistent with public trust Kesterson-like situations continued to occur, irri- according to signals—cooler water or protection and the reasonable use of water.
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]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Revegetation Program Installation Report and 201-201 Revegetation Plan
    SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT Revegetation Program Installation Report and 201-201 Revegetation Plan Create Report templates San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program DRAFT Year 4 (2014‐2015) Installation Report and Year 5 (2015‐2016) Revegetation Plan Prepared by Jeanne Hammond Olofson Environmental, Inc. 1830 Embarcadero Cove, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94606 For the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 January 26, 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Jeanne Hammond, the Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program Manager and incorporates the hard work done by other OEI biologists including Whitney Thornton, Jeffrey Lewis, Stephanie Chen, Nathan Deakers, Kevin Eng, Anastasia Ennis, Simon Gunner, Nina Hill, Penluck Laulikitnont, Jennifer McBroom, Monica Oey, Tobias Rohmer, Ilana Stein, Tripp McCandlish, as well as contributions from Ingrid Hogle and Drew Kerr. We would also like to thank our partners and contractors for all their hard work contracting, growing and planting including the California Wildlife Foundation, The Watershed Nursery, Shelterbelt, Inc., Hanford ARC, and Aquatic Environ‐ ments. This program would not be possible without the participation of our partner/landowners in‐ cluding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, East Bay Regional Park District, City of San Leandro, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, City of Alameda, City of Palo Alto, County of San Mateo Watershed Protection Services, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, and the Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This report was prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project with support and funding from the following contributors: California Coastal Conservancy California Wildlife Conservation Board (MOU #99‐054‐01 and subsequent) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Estuary
    1 AA FrameworkFramework forfor CollaborativeCollaborative ActionAction onon WetlandsWetlands US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE etlands in the San Francisco Bay Area are range of interests—including resource and regulato- Wamong the most important coastal wintering ry agencies, environmental organizations, business, and migratory stopover areas for millions of water- and agriculture—convened the San Francisco Bay fowl and shorebirds traveling along the Pacific Fly- Joint Venture (SFBJV) in June of 1995. In September way, which stretches from Alaska to South America. 1996, 20 parties representing this diverse wetlands These wetlands also provide economic benefits, constituency signed a working agreement that iden- offer a range of recreational opportunities, and con- tified the goals and objectives of the SFBJV, and the tribute to a higher quality of life for residents in the responsibilities of its board and working commit- densely populated San Francisco Bay Area. They are tees. The agreement also stated that the Implemen- essential aspects of the Bay region’s unique charac- tation Strategy would be developed to guide its par- ter and, along with the creeks that flow into the Bay, ties toward the long-term vision of the restored Bay help to define the vibrant and distinctive identities Estuary. The signatory partners recognized and of communities around the Bay. However, despite endorsed the goals of the North American Waterfowl their value, destruction of these precious natural Management Plan. However, they enlarged the goals assets continues. Today’s wetlands are only a rem- and objectives of the Plan to include benefits not nant, perhaps 20 percent of the vast wetlands seen only for waterfowl, but also for the other wildlife by the first European settlers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule
    2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 7/26/21 Environmental Review Site Locations (map) Treatment Methods Where: How: Herbicide Use: of Imazapyr Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering 01a Channel Mouth X Lower Channel (not including 01b X mouth) 01c Upper Channel X Alameda Flood 4 years with no 1 Upper Channel - Union City Blvd to Control Channel 01d invasive Spartina I-880 (2017-2020) 01e Strip Marsh No. of Channel Mouth X No Invasive 01f Pond 3-AFCC Spartina 2020 02a.1a Belmont Slough Mouth X X X 02a.1b Belmont Slough Mouth South X X X Upper Belmont Slough and 02a.2 X X X Redwood Shores 02a.3 Bird Island X 02a.4 Redwood Shores Mitigation Bank X 02b.1 Corkscrew Slough X X Steinberger Slough South, 02b.2 X X Redwood Creek Northwest 02c.1a B2 North Quadrant West 8/14 X X 02c.1b B2 North Quadrant East 8/24 X X 02c.2 B2 North Quadrant South 8/12-8/13 X X 02d.1a B2 South Quadrant West X 02d.1b B2 South Quadrant East X 02d.2 B2 South Quadrant (2) X 2 Bair/Greco Islands 02d.3 B2 South Quadrant (3) X 02e Westpoint Slough NW X X 02f Greco Island North X X 02g Westpoint Slough SW and East X X 02h Greco Island South X X 02i Ravenswood Slough & Mouth X Ravenswood Open Space Preserve 02j.1 X (north Hwy 84) * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season.
    [Show full text]
  • Marsh Trail H
    HIGH ST. HIGH Martin Luther King Jr. F E R N TIDEWATER S TIDEWATER Regional Shoreline I D BOATING LAUNCH KAYAK/CANOE E CENTER LINCOLN PARK (City of Alameda) Photo: Michael Short Michael Photo: B 4675 Tidewater Ave., L Location . Oakland Start/ .16 Hike ST. LESSER End 56 parking spaces STAGING TIDEWATER GPS 37.761486,-122.223014 ENTRANCE PARK OAKPORT ST. OAKPORT EASY HIKE (888-327-2757), option 3, AV. Phone extension 4541 .58 BAY T RAIL Miles 3.5-Mile Round Trip LUTHER KING JR. MARTIN Rev. 9/19 0 .16 Elevation .10 26 ft. East Creek Slough O N M A Gain D Bus Stop Marsh Boat Launch Reservable Picnic Picnic Phone Wheelchair Access Restroom Water Information Parking Paved Road Mileage Between Points San Francisco Bay Trail Multiuse Paved Trail M A R 1/8 S Trails Marsh Trail H 8 a.m. to Sunset; T Hours/ R A I Curfew L varies seasonally 1/4 Mi. North .84 Fees None 50 parking spots GATE PEPPERMINT FIELDS OAKPORT Website ebparks.org/parks/martinlking W Boating Center as well as the Garretson Point Staging I Bay Leandro San L D L I Pond Doolittle F Area turn around point. INSTALLATION ART AVE. ZHONE WAY/66TH E Park Features: Decades of restoration projects at S A N MLK Jr. Regional Shoreline have brought this precious Trail Directions: Look for the paved Bay Trail to C T U A marshland’s ecosystem back to life. The restoration R the left of the Tidewater Boating Center parking lot. Y W D A I L 66th AV.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quail Volume 66, Number 4 DECEMBER 2020–JANUARY 2021
    View this email in your browser The Quail Volume 66, Number 4 DECEMBER 2020–JANUARY 2021 Next Monthly Program Meeting: Thursday, December 3 Please mark your calendar for our next virtual monthly program meeting! See BELOW for webinar access info. 7:00 PM Welcome and Introductions 7:05 PM Birding Info: Julie Woodruff will provide an update on her Northern Saw-whet Owl banding project 7:25 PM Board Announcements 7:35 PM Main Program: Tricolored Blackbirds with Xerónimo Castañeda 8:30 PM Adjourn Main Program: Tricolored Blackbirds Xerónimo Castañeda, Tricolored Blackbird Conservation Project Manager Xerónimo Castañeda, Conser vation Project Manager with Audubon California, will discuss the protection of at-risk Tri colored Blackbird colonies, the development of multi-benefit groundwater recharge projects in target regions to benefit birds and communities, and on-farm habitat enhancement using cover crops and through riparian restoration. A native of California he has lived and worked from Monterey to Arcata, ventured to the east coast and eventually found his way back to Sacramento. His work with Audubon focuses on habitat restoration and enhancement through multi- benefit management of Central Valley wetlands, agricultural operations, and groundwater recharge projects to benefit birds and people. Away from work, Xerónimo spends time backpacking, riding bikes, cooking, and of course, birding. Photo: Xerónimo Castañeda Birding Info: Northern Saw-whet Owl Banding Project Julie Woodruff, Biologist, Northern Saw-whet Owl Project and Banding Program Do you love Northern Saw-whet Owls? Julie Woodruff will provide an update on her Northern Saw-whet Owl banding project, a local program supported by Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Access and Wildlife Compatibility
    Public Access and Wildlife Compatibility March 2001 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 California Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Information: (415) 352-3600 Fax: (415) 352-3606 Web site: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov CONTENTS FOREWORD..............................................................................................................................................i PROJECT CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................1 ADOPTED PUBLIC ACCESS FINDINGS AND POLICIES................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1. BCDC POLICY HISTORY: BALANCING PUBLIC ACCESS AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION................................................................................... 11 Bay Plan Background Reports................................................................................11 Bay Plan Policies......................................................................................................12 Suisun Marsh Protection Plan.................................................................................13 Public Access Supplement......................................................................................14 Assembly Bill No. 954 (Aroner) ..................................................................... 14 Summary ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Member Agencies
    Clean Water Program COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP GRANTS PROJECT APPLICATION FORM Please complete the following proposal form. Type the information below or cut and paste the information into the form. Use additional pages as needed. Be brief, but provide enough information about your group and your proposal so that we have a clear picture of what you plan to accomplish and how you plan to do so. If you are having difficulties completing this form, please contact Amy Evans at [email protected] or (925) 371-0154 x 112. Incomplete proposals will not be considered. We recommend looking at examples of previously funded proposals and projects that are available for viewing at: www.cleanwaterprogram.org/grants PROJECT TITLE: Wildlife Inspires Ecological Stewardship PROJECT DIRECTOR: Cindy Margulis PROJECT GROUP/SCHOOL: Golden Gate Audubon ADDRESS: 2530 San Pablo Ave. Suite G CITY Berkeley ZIP 94702 PHONE (Day) 510-843-2222 (Eve) 510-508-1388 EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected] NAME OF FISCAL SPONSOR (if applicable) ______________________________________ FISCAL SPONSOR CONTACT _____________________ PHONE _____________________ 1. DESCRIBE YOUR GROUP (if applicable): a. What is its purpose and why was it formed? Golden Gate Audubon formed in 1917 in order to stop three major oil companies from dumping crude oil near the Farallon Islands, off the San Francisco coast. Our mission: We engage Bay Area residents to: - Experience the wonder of birds and translate that wonder into action; and - Protect native bird populations and their habitats. b. How is it organized (formally/informally)? Please describe: Golden Gate Audubon is a not-for-profit organization with 501 (c)(3) status.
    [Show full text]
  • Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals a Report of Habitat Recommendations
    Baylands Ecosystem Baylands Ecosystem Teams of Bay Area environmental scientists have assessed abitat Goals the past and present conditions of the baylands ecosystem and recommended ways to improve its ecological health. This report presents the Baylands Ecosystem Goals. Habitat Goals Habitat Goals H A Report of Habitat Recommendations Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project Db Deep Bay/Channel Basic Baylands Facts Sb Shallow Bay/Channel The baylands exist around the Bay between the lines of high and Tf Tidal Flat low tide. They are the lands touched by the tides, plus the lands that Tm Tidal Marsh the tides would touch in the absence of any levees or other unnat- Tp Tidal Marsh Pan ural structures. Lg Lagoon There are 73,000 acres of tidal baylands and 139,000 acres of diked Bc Beach/Dune baylands. Ag Agricultural Bayland There used to be 23 miles of sandy beaches. Now there are about Dw Diked Wetland seven miles of beaches. Most of the present beaches occur in differ- Sp Salt Pond ent locations than the historical beaches. St Storage or Treatment Pond There used to be 190,000 acres of tidal marsh with 6,000 miles of Uf Undeveloped Bay Fill channels and 8,000 acres of shallow pans. Now there are 40,000 Df Developed Bay Fill acres of tidal marsh with about 1,000 miles of channels and 250 Pr Perennial Pond acres of pans. Rw Riparian Forest/Willow Grove Only 16,000 acres of the historical tidal marsh remain. The rest of Mg Moist Grassland the present tidal marsh has naturally evolved from tidal flat, been Gr Grassland/Vernal Pool Complex restored from diked baylands, or muted by water control structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Shorelines
    Existing Conditions and Stressors Report – Structural and Natural Shorelines INTRODUCTION TO THE ADAPTING TO RISING TIDES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND STRESSORS REPORT The Adapting to Rising Tides (ART) project evaluated the current condition of shoreline and community assets, and the stressors affecting them, because understanding existing conditions and stressors can inform an understanding of individual asset resilience (or lack thereof) to projected climate impacts, including sea level rise and storm events. Stressors can also provide information on current and future trends and how those trends may affect resilience. The existing conditions and stressors were analyzed and summarized for each asset category included in the ART project assessment. This analysis served as a foundation for the ART vulnerability and risk assessment, which examined asset exposure to five potential climate impacts, sensitivity of assets to these impacts, and the ability of assets to accommodate or adjust to these impacts with little financial or structural intervention. The following Existing Conditions and Stressors report chapter includes: • a definition of the asset category; • a synthesis of information about current conditions and stressors; and • discussion of these conditions through the lenses of sustainability organized by society and equity, environment, economy and governance. The complete ART Existing Conditions and Stressors Report is available at the ART Portfolio website. 1 Existing Conditions and Stressors Report – Structural and Natural Shorelines STRUCTURAL AND NATURAL SHORELINES I. Definition The ART project has a diverse shoreline composed of a variety of structural and natural areas. In general, structural shoreline protection assets in the project area are built features that have been constructed and maintained for specific purposes such as flood or erosion control.
    [Show full text]
  • California Clapper Rail (Rallus Longirostris Obsoletus) Population Monitoring: 2005-2011 Final Technical Report
    California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) Population monitoring: 2005-2011 Final Technical Report Leonard Liu, Julian Wood, Nadav Nur, Leo Salas, and Dennis Jongsomjit PRBO Conservation Science 3820 Cypress Drive #11, Petaluma, CA 94954 California Clapper Rail Population Monitoring 2005-2011 Final Report Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 6 METHODS .............................................................................................................. 9 FIELD SURVEYS .................................................................................................................... 9 ANALYSES ......................................................................................................................... 10 MODEL APPROACH ............................................................................................................. 11 ECOLOGICAL MODEL ........................................................................................................... 11 Detection Sub-model. ............................................................................................................................. 11 Abundance Sub-model. .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]