DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Hazard Mitigation PLAN WILDFIRE ANNEX

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Hazard Mitigation PLAN WILDFIRE ANNEX DOCUMENT MODIFICATION DATE: 8/25/2020 Community Wildfire Protection Plan APPROVAL DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 LOCAL HAZARD PREPARED BY: MITIGATION PLAN WILDFIRE GEO ELEMENTS, LLC PO BOX 461179 LEEDS, UT 84746 805-895-2750 ANNEX www.geoelementsllc.com rem ove INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN MUTUAL AGREEMENT PAGE The Community Wildfire Protection Plan developed for the City of Santa Rosa Fire Department: ✓ Was collaboratively developed. Interested parties, key stakeholders, local fire departments, and federal land management agencies managing land in the vicinity of Santa Rosa have been consulted. ✓ This plan identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and recommends the types and methods of treatment that will protect the community of Santa Rosa. ✓ This plan recommends measures to reduce the ignitability of structures throughout the area addressed by the plan. The following entities mutually agree with the contents of this Community Wildfire Protection Plan: Recommended by: ____________________________________________________ Tony Gossner Fire Chief, Santa Rosa Fire Department Approved by: ________________________________________________________ Tom Schwedhelm Mayor, City of Santa Rosa Approved by: ________________________________________________________ Ivan Houser Forester, Sonoma Lake Napa Unit (LNU) – CAL FIRE Acknowledgements The following community representatives, agencies, and other stakeholders were involved in the collaborative process in preparation of the Wildfire Annex/City of Santa Rosa Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP): CWPP Steering Committee Dennis Searles – Fountaingrove II Firewise Mark Courson – CAL OES, Region II – Assistant Coordinator Chief Ben Nicholls – CAL FIRE West Division Scott Moon – City of Santa Rosa Fire Operations Department, Fire Marshal Kevin Hubred – Oakmont Firewise Coordinator Paul Lowenthal – City of Santa Rosa Fire Department, Assistant Fire Marshal William Abrams – Sonoma County Resident & Fire Safe Sonoma Board Member Caerleon Safford – County of Sonoma & Fire Safe Sonoma Agency Stakeholder Group C. Alex Gustafson – Right of Way Agent, Ben Nicholls – CAL FIRE West Division CalTrans Operations Dennis Searles President, Fountaingrove II Maggie Robinson - State of California, North Open Space Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Cody Walker – Geologist, State of California, Caerleon Safford – County of Sonoma & Fire North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Safe Sonoma Board Scott Moon – Fire Marshal, City of Santa Rosa David Fowler - State of California, North Coast Fire Department Regional Water Quality Control Board Table of Contents SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 6 1.3 Policy and Regulatory Framework ................................................................................... 7 1.4 CWPP Planning Process ....................................................................................................... 7 1.4.1 City of Santa Rosa’s Collaborative Approach ....................................................... 8 SECTION 2. COMMUNITY OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 11 2.1 Assets at Risk ........................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.1 Life Safety ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.2 Homes and Neighborhoods ....................................................................................... 14 2.1.3 Commercial Structures and Economy ................................................................... 16 2.1.4 Critical Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 18 2.1.5 Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources ............................................................ 19 2.2 Land Use and Zoning .......................................................................................................... 23 2.3 Fire Protection ....................................................................................................................... 25 2.3.1 Available Resources .................................................................................................... 25 2.3.2 Agreements .................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.3 Responsibility Areas .................................................................................................... 27 SECTION 3. DEFINING THE WILDFIRE PROBLEM ............................................................... 30 3.1 Fire History ............................................................................................................................. 30 3.2 City of Santa Rosa’s Wildland Fire Environment ...................................................... 31 3.2.1 Fire Ecology .................................................................................................................... 31 3.2.2 Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 33 3.2.2.1 Impacts of Climate Change ................................................................. 35 3.2.3 Fire Weather ................................................................................................................... 36 3.2.4 Fuels .................................................................................................................................. 37 3.2.4.1 Urban Fuels .......................................................................................... 38 3.2.5 Topography ..................................................................................................................... 38 SECTION 4. A COMMUNITY AT RISK/WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE ........................ 40 4.1 State/Local Fire Hazard Severity and Santa Rosa’s WUI Areas ..................... 40 1 | P a g e SECTION 5. WILDFIRE ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................... 42 5.1 Wildfire Hazard Assessment ............................................................................................ 42 5.2 Wildfire Risk Assessment .................................................................................................. 43 5.3 Wildfire Damage Potential ................................................................................................ 45 5.4 Ember Exposure .................................................................................................................... 52 5.5 Wildfire Defensibility Assessment ................................................................................. 54 5.6 Safe Separation Distance ................................................................................................. 56 5.7 Speed of Onset ...................................................................................................................... 59 5.8 Firefighting Capacity versus Fire Behavior ................................................................. 61 5.9 Structure Vulnerability ....................................................................................................... 62 SECTION 6. ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................................ 66 6.1 Existing Community Preparedness and Programs ................................................... 66 6.2 Area Notification Systems ................................................................................................. 68 6.3 Social Network and Media Programs ............................................................................ 70 6.4 Protecting Assets ................................................................................................................. 71 6.4.1 Life Safety ....................................................................................................................... 71 6.4.2 Reducing Structure Ignitability .............................................................................. 72 6.4.3 Natural and Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 78 6.5 Fuels Mitigation Strategy .................................................................................................. 78 6.5.1 Existing Fuel Treatment Activities ......................................................................... 79 6.5.2 Proposed Fuel Treatments ........................................................................................ 81 6.6 Vegetation/Fuel Treatment Guidelines ....................................................................... 92 6.6.1 Vegetation/Fuel Treatment Prescriptions ............................................................. 92 6.6.1.1 Evacuation Route Treatment Prescriptions, Implementation Guidelines, and Best Management Practices ...................................................... 93 6.6.1.2 Vegetation/Fuel Treatment Prescriptive Guidelines, Implementation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wildfire and Poverty
    Wildfire and Poverty An Overview of the Interactions Among Wildfires, Fire-Related Programs, and Poverty in the Western States The Center for Watershed and Community Health Mark O. Hatfield School of Government Portland State University P.O. Box 751 Portland, Oregon 97207 503-725-8101 or 541-744-7072 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.upa.pdx.edu/CWCH/ Prepared for the CWCH by ECONorthwest 99 West Tenth Ave., Suite 400 Eugene, Oregon 97401 December 2001 BACKGROUND AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As we enter the new millennium, the citizens of the West face an increasing number of important challenges. An economic downturn has placed the economy, communities, and workers at risk. The events of September 11 dramatically increased concerns about personal safety and the security of our transportation systems, water resources, energy systems, food supplies, and other issues that were previously taken for granted. These issues have emerged at a time when our environment continues to be a concern. In Oregon, for example, the Oregon State of the Environment Report, released in September 2000 by the Oregon Progress Board, identified a number of environmental areas where Oregonians can expect continued problems under current policies and programs including: poor water quality, especially in urban and agricultural areas, inadequate water supplies, loss of wetlands, degraded riparian areas, depleted fish stocks, invasion of exotic species, diminished biodiversity, and waste and toxic releases. Similar problems exist throughout the West. All of these issues contribute to forest health problems which exacerbate the risks of wildfires to humans and the environment. How can we maintain and enhance our economic security and protect workers and communities while also conserving the environment? The way Western states answer this question may turn out to be one of the most important challenges facing the region for the next number of years.
    [Show full text]
  • P-19-CA-06-0DD2 January 1, 2021 Thru March 31, 2021 Performance
    Grantee: California Grant: P-19-CA-06-0DD2 January 1, 2021 thru March 31, 2021 Performance Grant Number: Obligation Date: Award Date: P-19-CA-06-0DD2 Grantee Name: Contract End Date: Review by HUD: California Original - In Progress Grant Award Amount: Grant Status: QPR Contact: $1,017,399,000.00 Active No QPR Contact Found LOCCS Authorized Amount: Estimated PI/RL Funds: $0.00 $0.00 Total Budget: $1,017,399,000.00 Disasters: Declaration Number FEMA-4382-CA FEMA-4407-CA Narratives Disaster Damage: 2018 was the deadliest year for wildfires in California’s history. In August 2018, the Carr Fire and the Mendocino Complex Fire erupted in northern California, followed in November 2018 by the Camp and Woolsey Fires. These were the most destructive and deadly of the dozens of fires to hit California that year. In total, it is estimated over 1.6 million acres burned during 2018. The Camp Fire became California’s deadliest wildfire on record, with 85 fatalities. 1. July-September 2018 Wildfires (DR-4382) At the end of July 2018, several fires ignited in northern California, eventually burning over 680,000 acres. The Carr Fire, which began on July 23, 2018, was active for 164 days and burned 229,651 acres in total, the majority of which were in Shasta County. It is estimated that 1,614 structures were destroyed, and eight fatalities were confirmed. The damage caused by this fire is estimated at approximately $1.659 billion. Over a year since the fire, the county and residents are still struggling to rebuild, with the construction sector pressed beyond its limit with the increased demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Authors: ​Lucas Steven Moore, Cooper Lee Bennett, Elizabeth
    Authors: Lucas Steven Moore, Cooper Lee Bennett, Elizabeth Robyn Nubla ​ Ogan, Kota Cody Enokida, Yi Man, Fernando Kevin Gonzalez, Christopher Carpio, Heather Michaela Gee ANTHRO 25A: Environmental Injustice Instructor: Prof. Dr. Kim Fortun Department of Cultural Anthropology Graduate Teaching Associates: Kaitlyn Rabach Tim Schütz Undergraduate Teaching Associates Nina Parshekofteh Lafayette Pierre White University of California Irvine, Fall 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS What is the setting of this case? [KOTA CODY ENOKIDA] 3 How does climate change produce environmental vulnerabilities and harms in this setting? [Lucas Moore] 6 What factors -- social, cultural, political, technological, ecological -- contribute to environmental health vulnerability and injustice in this setting? [ELIZABETH ROBYN NUBLA OGAN] 11 Who are the stakeholders, what are their characteristics, and what are their perceptions of the problems? [FERNANDO KEVIN GONZALEZ] 15 What have different stakeholder groups done (or not done) in response to the problems in this case? [Christopher Carpio] 18 How have big media outlets and environmental organizations covered environmental problems related to worse case scenarios in this setting? [COOPER LEE BENNETT] 20 What local actions would reduce environmental vulnerability and injustice related to fast disaster in this setting? [YI MAN] 23 What extra-local actions (at state, national or international levels) would reduce environmental vulnerability and injustice related to fast disaster in this setting and similar settings? [GROUP] 27 What kinds of data and research would be useful in efforts to characterize and address environmental threats (related to fast disaster, pollution and climate change) in this setting and similar settings? [HEATHER MICHAELA GEE] 32 What, in your view, is ethically wrong or unjust in this case? [GROUP] 35 BIBLIOGRAPHY 36 APPENDIX 45 Cover Image: Location in Sonoma County and the state of California.Wikipedia, licensed ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ under CC BY 3.0.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Red Cross Supports California Residents Affected by Wildfires
    2019 California Wildfires Six-Month Update 2020 Red Cross Supports California Residents Affected By Wildfires In fall 2019, wildfires once again raged across California, Lynne Fredericks, who evacuated from Windsor along burning nearly 200,000 acres of land and driving with her sister and their dog Jack, said she was amazed at hundreds of thousands of residents to flee their homes. In how hard others were working to help the evacuees, all Southern California, powerful Santa Ana winds combined “with so much kindness and generosity". "I have not seen with dry conditions to create swift fire growth and extreme anyone be rude to somebody coming in. I always see fire behavior. Multiple large blazes, including the Getty them being helpful,” she said. Fire, Tick Fire and Saddleridge Fire, destroyed thousands of acres as residents hastened to evacuate. Terrifying This kindness and generosity were on full display at the video footage showed columns of flames jumping across Red Cross shelter in Santa Rosa. When workers there roads and freeways. realized that the children staying in their shelter were going to miss Halloween, they quickly mobilized to create Northern California battled the Kincade Fire, the largest a fun-filled holiday celebration. On Halloween, costumed wildfire ever to occur in Sonoma County. Dry conditions, children enjoyed crafts, jack-o’-lanterns, face painting, high-wind events and the fast-moving wildfire led to the a visit from the Oakland Raiders mascot and of course, unprecedented evacuation of nearly 190,000 residents, candy. more than a third of the county’s population. For residents who had survived the deadly Tubbs Fire only two years The attentive work done by the Red Cross to support before, experiencing another evacuation was especially evacuees did not go unappreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Ludwigia Control in the Laguna De Santa Rosa, California
    Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California California Invasive Plant Council 15th Annual Symposium Thomas J. McNabb, Clean Lakes, Inc. Julian Meisler, Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California CDFA Project Site SCWA Project Site Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California The Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation (Laguna Foundation) contracted with Clean Lakes, Inc. to carry out Year One of a three-year control effort aimed at reducing the area and density of the non-native invasive weed Ludwigia hexapetala within selected areas of the Laguna de Santa Rosa The infestation harbors mosquito vectors of West Nile Virus (WNV) that poses a health threat to humans and wildlife; out-competes native wetland species, severely degrading habitat; and is believed to impair both the water quality and the flood-control functions of the Laguna. On April 28, 2005 the California Department of Fish and Game, Central Coast Region, and the Sonoma County Water Agency, each filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) and an Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan (APAP) to comply with the terms of the General National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for the Discharge of Aquatic Pesticides for Aquatic Weed Control (General Permit) On July 1, 2005, the California Department of Fish and Game filed form FG 880, Application No. 05-361, Pesticide Use Recommendation for the work to be performed on the Department of Fish and Game property (Site II). Ludwigia Control in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, California On July 14, 2005, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, issued project approvals via a letter of “Applicability of General NPDES Permit for the Discharge of Aquatic Pesticides for Aquatic Weed Control in Waters of the United States and a Notice of Coverage, Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Sonoma County” to the Sonoma County Water Agency, Ludwigia Control Project (WDID No.
    [Show full text]
  • USFA-TR-145 -- Tire Recycling Facility Fire
    U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series Tire Recycling Facility Fire Nebraska City, Nebraska USFA-TR-145/January-February 2002 U.S. Fire Administration Fire Investigations Program he U.S. Fire Administration develops reports on selected major fires throughout the country. The fires usually involve multiple deaths or a large loss of property. But the primary criterion T for deciding to do a report is whether it will result in significant “lessons learned.” In some cases these lessons bring to light new knowledge about fire--the effect of building construction or contents, human behavior in fire, etc. In other cases, the lessons are not new but are serious enough to highlight once again, with yet another fire tragedy report. In some cases, special reports are devel- oped to discuss events, drills, or new technologies which are of interest to the fire service. The reports are sent to fire magazines and are distributed at National and Regional fire meetings. The International Association of Fire Chiefs assists the USFA in disseminating the findings throughout the fire service. On a continuing basis the reports are available on request from the USFA; announce- ments of their availability are published widely in fire journals and newsletters. This body of work provides detailed information on the nature of the fire problem for policymakers who must decide on allocations of resources between fire and other pressing problems, and within the fire service to improve codes and code enforcement, training, public fire education, building technology, and other related areas. The Fire Administration, which has no regulatory authority, sends an experienced fire investigator into a community after a major incident only after having conferred with the local fire authorities to insure that the assistance and presence of the USFA would be supportive and would in no way interfere with any review of the incident they are themselves conducting.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Vulnerability Assessment for Mendocino County ______
    FIRE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY ____________________________________________ _________________________________________ August 2020 Mendocino County Fire Vulnerability Assessment ________________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I- OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 6 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 B. Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 6 C. Mendocino County Description and Demographics ................................................................ 7 D. Planning Area Basis .................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION II- COUNTY WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 9 A. Wildfire Threat ......................................................................................................................... 9 B. Weather/Climate ........................................................................................................................ 9 C. Topography ............................................................................................................................. 10 D. Fuel Hazards ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rules for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations
    Rules for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations RULES FOR BUILDING AND CLASSING FACILITIES ON OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS JANUARY 2014 (Updated February 2014 – see next page) American Bureau of Shipping Incorporated by Act of Legislature of the State of New York 1862 Copyright 2013 American Bureau of Shipping ABS Plaza 16855 Northchase Drive Houston, TX 77060 USA Updates February 2014 consolidation includes: • January 2014 version plus Corrigenda/Editorials Foreword Foreword These Rules contain the technical requirements and criteria employed by ABS in the review and survey of hydrocarbon production facilities that are being considered for Classification and for maintenance of Classification. It is applicable to Hydrocarbon Production and Processing Systems and associated utility and safety systems located on fixed (bottom-founded) offshore structures of various types. It also applies to systems installed on floating installations such as ships shape based FPSOs, tension leg platforms, spars, semisubmersibles, etc. There are differences in the practices adopted by the designers of fixed and floating installations. Some of these differences are due to physical limitations inherent in the construction of facilities on new or converted floating installations. Recognizing these differences, the requirements for facilities on fixed and floating installations are specified in separate chapters. Chapter 3 covers requirements for facilities on floating installations and Chapter 4 covers requirements for facilities on fixed installations. Facilities designed, constructed, and installed in accordance with the requirements of these Rules on an ABS classed fixed or floating offshore structure, under ABS review and survey, will be classed and identified in the Record by an appropriate classification notation as defined herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of California Wildfire Evacuations from 2017 to 2019
    REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA WILDFIRE EVACUATIONS FROM 2017 TO 2019 STEPHEN WONG, JACQUELYN BROADER, AND SUSAN SHAHEEN, PH.D. MARCH 2020 DOI: 10.7922/G2WW7FVK DOI: 10.7922/G29G5K2R Wong, Broader, Shaheen 2 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. UC-ITS-2019-19-b N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Review of California Wildfire Evacuations from 2017 to 2019 March 2020 6. Performing Organization Code ITS-Berkeley 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report Stephen D. Wong (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3638-3651), No. Jacquelyn C. Broader (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3269-955X), N/A Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D. (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3350-856X) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Institute of Transportation Studies, Berkeley N/A 109 McLaughlin Hall, MC1720 11. Contract or Grant No. Berkeley, CA 94720-1720 UC-ITS-2019-19 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Covered www.ucits.org Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code UC ITS 15. Supplementary Notes DOI: 10.7922/G29G5K2R 16. Abstract Between 2017 and 2019, California experienced a series of devastating wildfires that together led over one million people to be ordered to evacuate. Due to the speed of many of these wildfires, residents across California found themselves in challenging evacuation situations, often at night and with little time to escape. These evacuations placed considerable stress on public resources and infrastructure for both transportation and sheltering.
    [Show full text]
  • Living with Fire in Santa Cruz County
    L I V I N G W I T H IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY A guide for homeowners Revised 2009 THE CONCERN ABOUT WILDFIRE EQUATION Fire is a natural People are now With more peo- part of the living in the ple inhabiting Wildfires burn environment. fire prone the wildlands, intensely and Forests, environments, more fires are can be shrublands and and many likely to occur. difficult grasslands were + homes are built + + to control. burning long and maintained before there without regard existed an urban to wildfires. interface. • Greater loss of life. • Increased property losses. = • Damage to natural resources. • More money spent on firefighting. A lot of people assume that when a wildfire starts, it will be quickly controlled and extinguished. This is an accurate assumption 97% of the time. For most wildfires, firefighters have the ability, equipment, and technology for effective fire suppression. But 3% of the time wildfires burn so intensely that there is little firefighters can do. 2 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS WORKING TO PROTECT YOU AND YOUR PROPERTY: IN AN EMERGENCY CALL 9-1-1 Local Fire Protection Agencies and Districts: CAL FIRE/Santa Cruz County Fire Department:............(831) 335-5353 www.fire.ca.gov Aptos/La Selva Beach Fire Protection District:...............(831) 685-6690 www.aptosfire.com Ben Lomond Fire Protection District: .............................(831) 336-5495 www.benlomondfd.com Branciforte Fire Protection District: ...............................(831) 423-8856 www.branciforte.net Boulder Creek Fire Department: .....................................(831)
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORICAL CHANGES in CHANNEL ALIGNMENT Along Lower Laguna De Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek
    HISTORICAL CHANGES IN CHANNEL ALIGNMENT along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek PREPARED FOR SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY JUNE 2014 Prepared by: Sean Baumgarten1 Erin Beller1 Robin Grossinger1 Chuck Striplen1 Contributors: Hattie Brown2 Scott Dusterhoff1 Micha Salomon1 Design: Ruth Askevold1 1 San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation San Francisco Estuary Institute Publication #715 Suggested Citation: Baumgarten S, EE Beller, RM Grossinger, CS Striplen, H Brown, S Dusterhoff, M Salomon, RA Askevold. 2014. Historical Changes in Channel Alignment along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek. SFEI Publication #715, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. Report and GIS layers are available on SFEI’s website, at http://www.sfei.org/ MarkWestHE Permissions rights for images used in this publication have been specifically acquired for one-time use in this publication only. Further use or reproduction is prohibited without express written permission from the responsible source institution. For permissions and reproductions inquiries, please contact the responsible source institution directly. CONTENTS 1. Introduction .....................................................................................1 a. Environmental Setting..........................................................................2 b. Study Area ................................................................................................2 2. Methods ............................................................................................4
    [Show full text]