DOCSLIB.ORG

APPENDIX F Marine Biological Resources Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APPENDIX F Marine Biological Resources Technical Report APPENDIX F Marine Biological Resources Technical Report Marine Biological Resources Technical Report for the Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project FINAL Prepared for: AECOM 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 500 San Diego CA 92101 Prepared by: Merkel & Associates, Inc. 5434 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 Phone: (858) 560-5465 Fax: (858) 560-7779 August 2014 Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project Marine Biological Resources Technical Report August 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Technical Approach ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Location and Lagoon Restoration Overview ...................................................... 1 1.3 Project Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Freshwater Alternative .................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Saltwater Alternative ...................................................................................................... 9 1.6 Hybrid Alternative .......................................................................................................... 9 1.7 No Project Alternative .................................................................................................. 10 1.8 Materials Disposal/Placement ....................................................................................... 15 1.9 Construction Methods, Schedule, and Design Features................................................ 21 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 25 2.1 Regional Overview ....................................................................................................... 25 2.2 Marine Shoreline and Offshore Habitats ...................................................................... 26 2.3 Plankton ........................................................................................................................ 40 2.4 Marine-Associated Birds .............................................................................................. 40 2.5 Marine Mammals .......................................................................................................... 42 2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................ 42 2.7 Coastal Lagoons ............................................................................................................ 45 2.8 Receiver Sites................................................................................................................ 48 2.9 Nearshore Disposal Site ................................................................................................ 51 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 52 3.1 Freshwater Alternative .................................................................................................. 52 3.2 Saltwater Alternative .................................................................................................... 62 3.3 Hybrid Alternative – Options A and B ......................................................................... 68 4.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 76 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 79 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Regional Map. ..................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-2. Project Location and Existing Habitat Distribution Map. ................................................... 4 Figure 1-3. Proposed Freshwater Alternative Habitat Distribution. .................................................... 11 Figure 1-4. Proposed Saltwater Alternative Habitat Distribution. ....................................................... 12 Figure 1-5. Proposed Hybrid Alternative Option A Habitat Distribution. ........................................... 13 Figure 1-6. Proposed Hybrid Alternative Option B Habitat Distribution. ........................................... 14 Figure 1-7. Potential Offsite Materials Placement Sites. ..................................................................... 18 Figure 1-8. Oceanside Nearshore and Beach Placement Sites. ............................................................ 19 Figure 1-9. North Carlsbad Placement Site. ........................................................................................ 20 Figure 2-1. Nearshore resources and proposed receiver sites within the study area (from SANDAG 2011). ........................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 2-2. Sensitive habitats and nearshore resources in vicinity of proposed nearshore disposal footprint and Oceanside receiver site (after SANDAG 2011). .................................................... 34 Figure 2-3. Sensitive habitats and nearshore resources in vicinity of North Carlsbad receiver site (from SANDAG 2011). ............................................................................................................... 35 Merkel & Associates, Inc. #11-077-01 i Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project Marine Biological Resources Technical Report August 2014 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Existing and Proposed Habitat Distribution (Acreages). ...................................................... 6 Table 1-2. Hydraulic Connection Summary. ......................................................................................... 7 Table 1-3. Materials Removal and Maintenance Requirements. ........................................................... 8 Table 1-4. Earthwork Volume (cy) by Basin. ...................................................................................... 15 Table 1-5. Estimated Sand Content Percentage by Basin. ................................................................... 16 Table 1-6. Materials Disposal and Reuse Scenarios. ........................................................................... 17 Table 2-1. Common organisms observed from soft bottom habitat in San Diego County. ................. 29 Table 2-2. Estimated hard-bottom and vegetated habitat acreage in the vicinity of the study area (from SANDAG 2011). ............................................................................................................... 30 Table 2-3. Kelp canopy coverage (acres) of San Diego County kelp beds from 2000 to 2011. .......... 31 Table 2-4. Common organisms observed from hard bottom reefs in San Diego County. ................... 37 Table 2-5. Birds observed along the shoreline within the Encinitas and Solana Beach study area, September 2002 (from USACE 2012). ........................................................................................ 41 Table 2-6. Status of Least Tern Breeding in the vicinity of the study area, 2009-2012. ..................... 44 Table 2-7. Results of summer window surveys for snowy plovers in the vicinity of the study area, 2006-2012. ................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 2-8. Estimated closest distances to hard bottom and vegetated habitats from the seaward boundary of proposed receiver sites (from SANDAG 2011). ..................................................... 48 Table 2-9. Estimated closest distances to least tern and snowy plover nest sites (from SANDAG 2011). ........................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 2-10. Summary of habitats at the proposed receiver sites and in the nearshore vicinity (from SANDAG 2011). ......................................................................................................................... 49 Table 3-1. Estimated direct impact acreage with proposed sand placement per approach for Freshwater Alternative. ............................................................................................................... 54 Table 3-2. Estimated sediment plume length at potential disposal sites (after SANDAG 2011). ....... 57 Table 3-3. Estimated direct impact acreage with proposed sand placement per approach for Saltwater Alternative. .................................................................................................................................. 63 Table 3-4. Estimated direct impact acreage with proposed sand placement per approach for Hybrid Alternative – Options A and B. ................................................................................................... 69 Merkel & Associates, Inc. #11-077-01 ii Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project Marine Biological Resources Technical Report August 2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH This report specifically addresses shoreline and nearshore marine biological resources to a depth of approximately 100 ft between Oceanside Harbor and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Biological resources within Buena Vista Lagoon are discussed and analyzed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks Bioblitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 ON THIS PAGE Photograph of BioBlitz participants conducting data entry into iNaturalist. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. ON THE COVER Photograph of BioBlitz participants collecting aquatic species data in the Presidio of San Francisco. Photograph courtesy of National Park Service. The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 Elizabeth Edson1, Michelle O’Herron1, Alison Forrestel2, Daniel George3 1Golden Gate Parks Conservancy Building 201 Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94129 2National Park Service. Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1061 Sausalito, CA 94965 3National Park Service. San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory & Monitoring Program Manager Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1063 Sausalito, CA 94965 March 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9.0 Literature Cited
    9.0 Literature Cited CHAPTER 9.0 LITERATURE CITED AECOM 2013 2013 Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Least Bell’s Vireo, and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Summary Report, San Diego County, California. Airnav.com 2014 Airports Search. Website available at https://www.airnav.com/airports/. Accessed September 13. Applegate, June 1982 Buena Vista Lagoon and Watershed Sediment Control Study. Prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy. Aquatic Environments 2014 Personal communication via phone between Eli Kirsch, Aquatic Environments, and Liz Schneider, AECOM, regarding cattail mowing rates. December. Atwood, J. L., and D. E. Minsky 1983 USFWS Least Tern Foraging Ecology at Three Major California Breeding Colonies. Western Birds 14:57–72. Bash, J., C. Berman, and S. Bolton 2001 Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Solids on Salmonids. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington. Beare, P. A., and J. B. Zedler 1987 Cattail Invasion and Persistence Salt Marsh: The Role of Salinity in a Coastal Reduction. Estuaries 10:165-170. Beier, P., D. R. Majka, and W. D. Spencer 2008 Forks in the Road: Choices in Procedures for Designing Wildland Linkages. Conservation Biology 22:836–851. Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project Final EIR Page 9-1 September 2017 9.0 Literature Cited Beier, P., and R. F. Noss 1998 Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity? Conservation Biology 12:1241–1252. Bell, M. C. 1991 Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria. Third edition. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program. Portland, Oregon. Beller, E., S. Baumgarten, R. Grossinger, S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Green Fluorescent Protein
    P1: rpk/plb P2: rpk April 30, 1998 11:6 Annual Reviews AR057-17 Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1998. 67:509–44 Copyright c 1998 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved THE GREEN FLUORESCENT PROTEIN Roger Y. Tsien Howard Hughes Medical Institute; University of California, San Diego; La Jolla, CA 92093-0647 KEY WORDS: Aequorea, mutants, chromophore, bioluminescence, GFP ABSTRACT In just three years, the green fluorescent protein (GFP) from the jellyfish Aequorea victoria has vaulted from obscurity to become one of the most widely studied and exploited proteins in biochemistry and cell biology. Its amazing ability to generate a highly visible, efficiently emitting internal fluorophore is both intrin- sically fascinating and tremendously valuable. High-resolution crystal structures of GFP offer unprecedented opportunities to understand and manipulate the rela- tion between protein structure and spectroscopic function. GFP has become well established as a marker of gene expression and protein targeting in intact cells and organisms. Mutagenesis and engineering of GFP into chimeric proteins are opening new vistas in physiological indicators, biosensors, and photochemical memories. CONTENTS NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC HISTORY OF GFP .................................510 Discovery and Major Milestones .............................................510 Occurrence, Relation to Bioluminescence, and Comparison with Other Fluorescent Proteins .....................................511 PRIMARY, SECONDARY, TERTIARY, AND QUATERNARY STRUCTURE ...........512 Primary Sequence from
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental DNA Reveals the Fine-Grained and Hierarchical
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Environmental DNA reveals the fne‑grained and hierarchical spatial structure of kelp forest fsh communities Thomas Lamy 1,2*, Kathleen J. Pitz 3, Francisco P. Chavez3, Christie E. Yorke1 & Robert J. Miller1 Biodiversity is changing at an accelerating rate at both local and regional scales. Beta diversity, which quantifes species turnover between these two scales, is emerging as a key driver of ecosystem function that can inform spatial conservation. Yet measuring biodiversity remains a major challenge, especially in aquatic ecosystems. Decoding environmental DNA (eDNA) left behind by organisms ofers the possibility of detecting species sans direct observation, a Rosetta Stone for biodiversity. While eDNA has proven useful to illuminate diversity in aquatic ecosystems, its utility for measuring beta diversity over spatial scales small enough to be relevant to conservation purposes is poorly known. Here we tested how eDNA performs relative to underwater visual census (UVC) to evaluate beta diversity of marine communities. We paired UVC with 12S eDNA metabarcoding and used a spatially structured hierarchical sampling design to assess key spatial metrics of fsh communities on temperate rocky reefs in southern California. eDNA provided a more‑detailed picture of the main sources of spatial variation in both taxonomic richness and community turnover, which primarily arose due to strong species fltering within and among rocky reefs. As expected, eDNA detected more taxa at the regional scale (69 vs. 38) which accumulated quickly with space and plateaued at only ~ 11 samples. Conversely, the discovery rate of new taxa was slower with no sign of saturation for UVC.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Biology and Ecology of Small Tunas in The
    3 2. BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY OF SMALL TUNAS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND THE BLACK SEAS This section of the report includes the available information on the life history of the main species of small tunas present in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Black Sea, according to various scientific sources, with particular attention to the biological parameters useful for stock assessment. As far as the biology is concerned, it was decided only to take into account the specific features reported for the study area, substituting them with worldwide references if the local information was not available. Length frequencies have been collected by several fisheries and they have been summarized herein by species. 2.1 Sarda sarda (Block, 1793) The Atlantic bonito, Sarda sarda (Block, 1793) (ICCAT code BON) is an epi-pelagic neritic schooling species which lives in a large range of water temperatures (12–27°) and salinities (14–39‰), sometimes reported entering estuaries (Collette and Nauen, 1983). Its distribution is in tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic and Mediterranean, including the Black Sea. On the East side of Atlantic the distribution appears uninterrupted from Scandinavia to South Africa; on the West side, it presents interruptions in the Caribbean Sea and South of the Amazon River to Northern Argentina. The maximum size in the Atlantic is 91.4 cm (Collette and Nauen, 1983), in the Mediterranean it is 96 cm (Ionian Sea, De Metrio et al., 1998) and in the Black Sea it is 90 cm (Kara, 1979). The diagnostic features are well known (Collette and Nauen, 1983): upper jaw teeth 16 to 26; lower jaw teeth 12 to 24; gillrakers 16 to 23 on first arch.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphology of Two Deep-Sea Olivella from the Southwestern Atlantic, with a Record of a Radula-Less Olivellinae Species (Neogastropoda: Olivoidea: Olividae)
    Archiv für Molluskenkunde 150 (1) 31–43 Frankfurt am Main, 30 June 2021 Morphology of two deep-sea Olivella from the southwestern Atlantic, with a record of a radula-less Olivellinae species (Neogastropoda: Olivoidea: Olividae) Alexandre Dias Pimenta1 & Luiz Ricardo Lopes Simone2 1 Departamento de Invertebrados, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Quinta da Boa Vista, São Cristóvão, 20940-040, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ([email protected]). https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7001-5820 2 Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga, 04263-000, São Paulo, Brazil ([email protected]). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1397-9823 • Corresponding author: A.D. Pimenta. Abstract. Two deep-sea species from southeast Brazil, originally assigned to different subgenera ofOli - vella, are anatomically described. Olivella (Olivina) klappenbachi and Olivella (Anasser) careorugula, both described by Absalão & Pimenta (2003), present typical Olivellinae anatomy, with internal absorp­ tion of the shell wall and a non-spiralized visceral mass, the absence of a valve of Leiblein and gland of Leiblein, and a large cuticularized and muscular stomach. Olivella klappenbachi presents the typical radular morphology of Olivellinae, while Olivella careorugula lacks a radula and odontophore, which is unique among known olivids. A well-founded phylogenetic classification of Olivella at the generic/ subgeneric level is still lacking, and the numerous proposed subgenera are mostly based on the structure of the pillar. A broader taxonomic
    [Show full text]
  • ASSESSMENT of COASTAL WATER RESOURCES and WATERSHED CONDITIONS at CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/354 Water Resources Division Natural Resource Program Centerent of the Interior ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL WATER RESOURCES AND WATERSHED CONDITIONS AT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, marine resource management, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top Left: Santa Cruz, Kristen Keteles Top Right: Brown Pelican, NPS photo Bottom Left: Red Abalone, NPS photo Bottom Left: Santa Rosa, Kristen Keteles Bottom Middle: Anacapa, Kristen Keteles Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Channel Islands National Park, California Dr. Diana L.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List
    Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List The target species list (species to be surveyed) should not change over the course of the study, therefore determining the target species list is an important project design task. Because waterbirds, including shorebirds, can occur in very high numbers in a census area, it is often not possible to count all species without compromising the quality of the survey data. For the basic shorebird census program (protocol 1), we recommend counting all shorebirds (sub-Order Charadrii), all raptors (hawks, falcons, owls, etc.), Common Ravens, and American Crows. This list of species is available on our field data forms, which can be downloaded from this site, and as a drop-down list on our online data entry form. If a very rare species occurs on a shorebird area survey, the species will need to be submitted with good documentation as a narrative note with the survey data. Project goals that could preclude counting all species include surveys designed to search for color-marked birds or post- breeding season counts of age-classed bird to obtain age ratios for a species. When conducting a census, you should identify as many of the shorebirds as possible to species; sometimes, however, this is not possible. For example, dowitchers often cannot be separated under censuses conditions, and at a distance or under poor lighting, it may not be possible to distinguish some species such as small Calidris sandpipers. We have provided codes for species combinations that commonly are reported on censuses. Combined codes are still species-specific and you should use the code that provides as much information as possible about the potential species combination you designate.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Fisheries Report an Update Through 2008
    STATUS OF THE FISHERIES REPORT AN UPDATE THROUGH 2008 Photo credit: Edgar Roberts. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission as directed by the Marine Life Management Act of 1998 Prepared by California Department of Fish and Game Marine Region August 2010 Acknowledgements Many of the fishery reviews in this report are updates of the reviews contained in California’s Living Marine Resources: A Status Report published in 2001. California’s Living Marine Resources provides a complete review of California’s three major marine ecosystems (nearshore, offshore, and bays and estuaries) and all the important plants and marine animals that dwell there. This report, along with the Updates for 2003 and 2006, is available on the Department’s website. All the reviews in this report were contributed by California Department of Fish and Game biologists unless another affiliation is indicated. Author’s names and email addresses are provided with each review. The Editor would like to thank the contributors for their efforts. All the contributors endeavored to make their reviews as accurate and up-to-date as possible. Additionally, thanks go to the photographers whose photos are included in this report. Editor Traci Larinto Senior Marine Biologist Specialist California Department of Fish and Game [email protected] Status of the Fisheries Report 2008 ii Table of Contents 1 Coonstripe Shrimp, Pandalus danae .................................................................1-1 2 Kellet’s Whelk, Kelletia kelletii ...........................................................................2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Alegria, Santa Barbara County, California May 26, 2001 Species List
    PISCO Coastal Biodiversity Survey University of California Santa Cruz http://cbsurveys.ucsc.edu Please note: The information listed below is provided for your convenience. We ask that you please contact the SWAT Team ([email protected]) prior to using this information for any purpose. We make this request to: 1. Reduce redundancy; we may be currently working on projects that involve this information. 2. We would like to be informed of and involved in projects developed using this information. We have been careful to voucher any organisms that were difficult to identify in the field so that more detailed evaluation could be done in the lab. We are therefore confident that the identification of organisms listed below is reliable with the caveat that some sponges and tunicates are very difficult to identify to species without detailed histological evaluation, which we have not done. The number of cases where this could have been a problem is very small. For more information please visit our website above or link directly to our protocols at: http://cbsurveys.ucsc.edu/sampling/images/dataprotocols.pdf Alegria, Santa Barbara County, California May 26, 2001 Species list: Acanthinucella spp Lepidochitona dentiens Acrosorium ciliolatum Lepidochitona hartwegii Alia spp Littorina keenae Anthopleura elegantissima Littorina plena/scutulata Anthopleura sola Lottia austrodigitalis/digitalis Balanus glandula Lottia limatula Blue green algae Lottia paradigitalis/strigatella Bossiella spp Lottia pelta Brachidontes/Septifer spp Lottia scabra/conus Calliarthron
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Environmental Assessment: Kent Island Restoration at Bolinas Lagoon
    DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: KENT ISLAND RESTORATION AT BOLINAS LAGOON Marin County Open Space District and US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District August 2012 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: KENT ISLAND RESTORATION AT BOLINAS LAGOON PREPARED FOR Marin County Open Space District Marin County Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 499-6387 and US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 1455 Market St San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 503-6703 PREPARED BY Carmen Ecological Consulting Grassetti Environmental Consulting Peter R. Baye, Coastal Ecologist, Botanist August 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................................1 1.2 Document Structure ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................3 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................3 2.2 Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................................3 2.3 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Shorebird Numbers in Wetlands of the Pacific Flyway: ~ Summary of Spring, Fall, & Winter Counts in 1988, 1989, and 1990
    SHOREBIRD NUMBERS IN WETLANDS OF THE PACIFIC FLYWAY: ~ SUMMARY OF SPRING, FALL, & WINTER COUNTS IN 1988, 1989, AND 1990 0 Janet Iqelmyr, Gary W. Page, W. David Shuford, & Lynne E. Stenzel -~-~~~-'."!~'-, ( JulyJ991 ;-... ,_;:~ . v-n· ~ :·-' A report of Point Reyes Bird Observatory 4990 Shoreline Highway . · Stinson Beach, CA 94970 © Copyright, PRBO The data reported herein are part of an ongoing study of shorebird use of wetlands in the Pacific Flyway. For pennission to cite results from this report . in the scientific literature, please contact the authors. !d ~'i:!' ~~k.kfl ~ A 'Irsf, ;: Ch~~'t<"'~~~ PJaska Resources Library & Information Services Anchorage Alaskg KEY TO NUMBERED SITES 1 SMITH RIVER MOUTH 2 POINT ST. GEORGE 3 EEL RIVER MOUTH 4 POINT REYES(BODEGA BAY WETLANDS BODEGA HARBOR ESTERO AMERICANO TOMALES BAY DRAKES ESTERO LIMANTOUR ESTERO BOUNAS LAGOON 5 MONTEREY BAY AREA PAJARO RIVER(WATSONVILLE SLOUGH ELKHORN SLOUGH SAUNAS RIVER MOUTH SALINAS SEWAGE PONDS 8 LOS ANGELES RIVER 7 SEAL BEACH NWR 8 BOLSACHICA 9 BATIQUrTOS LAGOON & SAN EUJO LAGOON 10 SAN DIEGO BAY AREA MISSION BAY SAN DIEGO BAY TIJUANA RIVER MOUTH 11 HARNEY LAKE 12 MUD LAKE 13 CAMPBELL LAKE 14 HART LAKE 15 GOOSE LAKE 18 UPPER ALKAU LAKE 17 SACRAMENTO NWR ... 18 DELEVAN NWR - ·-··- ·-:·:. '·'· -~-- ; 19 COLUSANWR 20 BUTTE SINK NWR 21 GRAY LODGE WA 22 SUTTER NWR 23 WOODLAND SUGAR PONDS 24 NATOMAS ROAD 25 UPPER BEACH LAKE 28 MODESTO SEWAGE PONDS . ·.··· ... ~- ~~~: . : .... - ··,. 27 GRASSLAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 28 BARBIZON FARMS & WESTLAKE FARMS NORTH EVAPORATION PONDS 29 HANFORD SEWAGE PONDS 30 DINUBA SEWAGE PONDS 31 CROWLEY LAKE ____ ,·..,. -.-·- 32 CORCORAN SEWAGE PONDS 33 TULARE SEWAGE PONDS · '' 34 VISAUA SEWAGE PONDS .
    [Show full text]