DOCSLIB.ORG

The Natural Resources 0 the Napa Marsh

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The natural resources of the Napa Marsh Item Type monograph Authors Michaels, James Publisher California Department of Fish and Game Download date 03/10/2021 22:08:04 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/18456 • t F~00 ~ v THE NATURAL RESOURCES 0 OF THE NAPA MARSH .. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AUGUST 1977 COASTAL WETLANDS SERIES REPORTS: # 1 - Natural Resources of Upper Newport Bay .. # 2 - The Natural Resources of Goleta Slough # 3 - The Natural Resources of Bolinas Lagoon, Their Status and Future # 4 - The Natural Resources of Elkhorn Slough # 5 - The Natural Resources of San Diego Bay, Their Status and Future # 6 - The Natural Resources of Humboldt Bay # 7 - The Natural Resources of Los Penasquitos Lagoon # 8 - The Natural Resources of Morro Bay # 9 - Natural Resources of the Eel River Delta #10 - Natural Resources of Lake Earl and the Smith River Delta #11 - The Natural Resources of Bodega Harbor #12 - The Natural Resources of San Dieguito and Batiquitos Lagoons #13 - The Natural Resources of Carpinteria Marsh #14 - Natural Resources of the Coastal Wetlands of Northern Santa Barbara County #15 - The Natural Resources of the Nipomo Dunes and Wetlands #16 - The Natural Resources of Agua Hedionda Lagoon #17 - The Natural Resources of Mugu Lagoon #18 - The Natural Resources of Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour #19 - The Natural Resources of Napa Marsh #20 - The Natural Resources of Esteros Americano and de San Antonio - .. - .. THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF NAPA MARSH - .. - Prepared by: MADRONE ASSOCIATES - Environmental Consultants - Assisted by: James Michaels, Wildlife Biologist Region 3, Department of Fish and Game Under Contract to: California Department of Fish and Game E. C. Fullerton, Director John Speth, Planning Branch Bruce Browning, Coastal Wetlands Program Coordinator Coastal Wetland Series #19 August 1977 • I , I I I I I I t I I , I , , I I I , San Pablo Bay and the Napa Marsh. (California Department of Fish &Game photo by John Speth) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was written and produced by Madrone Associates, Environmental Consultants, San Rafael, California. The Principal­ in-Charge and Project Leader was Rembert Kingsley. Nona Oennis served as Technical Director of the report and was assisted ·by Cecilia Bridges, Diane Renshaw, John Robert, Ray Peterson, and David Mayfield, all of whom researched and wrote portions of the draft. Madrone staff Gay Kagy and Carol Handin typed the manu­ script, and Dan Lewis is responsible for most of the graphics. - The information on hydrology was prepared by David Storm, environmental engineer, Davis, California, and geologic material was supplied by Frank Kresse, engineering geologist with Harding­ Lawson Associates, San Rafael. Notes on history were researched by Nancy Wise. - It would have been impossible to prepare this report without the close cooperation and willing help of the Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, staff, especially Jim Michaels, Wildlife Biologist, who worked closely with Madrone staff and supplied his files on the Napa marshes. Craig Thomsen, botanist and seasonal aide to Region 3, spent many hours studying and mapping the vege­ tation of the marsh. Michael Fontana, Sally Sample, Dave Harlow and Barrett Christenson assisted with gathering field data on the marsh. Leslie Salt Company is singled out and acknowledged for its cooperation in providing information and access to the salt pond areas. Finally, we extend gratitude to Bruce Browning, Coastal Wetlands Program Coordinator, whose affection for California coastal wetlands and dedication to prot~cting them have been revealed in past reports and continue to be expressed in his concern for the Napa Marsh. - - - TABLE OF CONTENTS WI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .. INTRODUCTION . - SUMMARY ... 3 RECOrYlMENDAT IONS 9 NAPA MARSHES AND ENVIRONS 11 Physical Features 11 - 13 Geology and Soils . Cl imate ........ 17 .. Drainage and Hydrology .. 19 Groundwater Hydrology . 21 Water Quality and Water Characteristics 21 History ... ' .. 25 .. NATURAL RESOURCES 29 .. Habitat Types 29 Open \~ater .. 30 Mudflat . 31 Tidal Marsh 32 - Dikes .... 34 Disturbed Marsh 35 - Salt Ponds. 36 Agriculture 37 Wi ndrows .. 37 - i i .. - Fish and Wildlife. 39 Fi sh ..... 39 Reptiles and Amphibians 40 Birds .. 40 Mamnla 1s . 47 Invertebrates . 48 Insects ......... 50 Ecological Relationships 52 Areas of Biological Significance 55 - Coon Island Ecological Reserve 56 Bull Island and Fagan Marsh. 58 Steamboat Slough Marsh . 60 Lower Tubbs Island Preserve. .. 62 NATURAL RESOURCE AND LAND USE 64 General Resource Use 64 Hunting . 64 - Fishing . 67 Brine Shrimp Production . 68 Recreational and Educational/Scientific Uses 68 Land Ownership 69 Land Use 70 Agriculture. 70 Industrial . 72 Commercial . 74 Transportation 74 Public Facilities. 75 Residential ... 77 iii - - Land Use Planning and Regulation .. 78 County of Sonoma 78 County of Napa . 79 County of Solano 80 City of Napa . 80 - City of Vallejo 81 Other Public Agencies and Speci:al Districts 82 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 82 u.S. Army Corps of Engineers 83 San Francisco Bay Regiona Water Quality Control Board 83 State Lands Division and the Department of Fish and Game ..... 83 United States Fish and Wildl ife Service (Ft~S) . 84 - List of Other Agencies Having Limited Jurisdiction in the Marsh . 84 PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS . 85 Urbanization . 85 Residential 88 .. Commercial and Industrial Development 89 Transportation . 89 Sol i d ~Ja st e 90 .. Agricultural Lands 90 Leslie Salt Ponds 91 Flood Control 91 - iv - • Maintenance Dredging and Spoils Disposal. 91 Natural Causes . 92 Access . 93 REFERENCES 94 .. APPENDIX A. Plants of the Napa Marshes A-l Algae of the Napa River .. A-9 Lichens Observed on Baccharis pilularis in the Napa Marsh .... ··· A-ll APPENDIX B. Fish of Napa River and Napa Marsh Sloughs. B-1 .. Fish Collection Data--1973 to 1976 B-4 APPENDIX C. Napa Marsh: Reptiles and Amphibians C-l APPENDIX D. Birds Observed in Napa Marshes, 1975-76 . 0-1 Bird Census Methodology. 0-7 Bird Observation Stations 0-9 APPENDIX E. Mamma 1s . E-l APPENDIX F. Invertebrates: Planktonic and Benthic Invertebrates Collected in the Napa Marsh F-1 .. Insects of the Napa Marshes F-3 PLATE NO. 1. Locat ion 12 - PLATE NO. 2. Watersheds 20 PLATE NO. 3. Vegetation (Habitat) Map Fold-out PLATE NO. 4. Coon Island Ecological Reserve 57 PLATE NO. 5. Bull Island and Fagan Marsh 59 PLATE NO. 6. Steamboat Slough Marsh (Sonoma County) 61 .. PLATE NO. 7. Lower Tubbs Island Preserve 63 ., v - - - PLATE NO.8. Napa Marsh State Wildlife Area and San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 65 PLATE NO.9. Land Use ............ 71 - TABLE NO.1. Climate Summary: Duttons Landing 18 TABLE NO.2. Tidal Data: Napa Marsh ..... 22 - FIGURE NO.1. Annual Fluctuation of Shorebird Population: 1975-76 . 42 FIGURE NO.2. Annual Fluctuation of Duck Population: - 1975-76 . 43 - - - - vi .. - .. INTRODUCTION Less than a hundred years ago Napa Marsh was one of the most extensive wetland systems in the San Francisco Bay Area, providing habitat resources for millions of migrating waterfowl and shorebirds. As with other wetlands around the bay, the encroachment of human settlerrlents, prompted by needs for space and "productive" land, has resulted in replacement of major areas of the historic Napa Marsh by other land uses. However, unlike some other "reclaimed" and developed bay wetlands, the former Napa marshlands retain for the - most part a pastoral aspect, having been converted largely into salt ponds and agricultural fields. Only within the past two decades have there been more drama- tic and destructive incursions into the marshes, in the form of - industrial, commercial and residential developments. As demands continue to be made, especially on the eastern portions of the Napa Marsh, it becomes increasingly important to take stock of the natural and cultural resources that still exist within the boundaries - of the historic Napa Marsh, so that future land use decisions can be made in full recognition of the need to protect those resources. .. One of the objectives of this report is to document not only the ecologic/biological resources of the Napa Marsh but also the aesthetic, recreational, and productive (such as agriculture and salt production) resources of the 73 square miles that once made up a network of wetlands and sloughs ·and rivers. Thousands of people - cross portions of the marsh by automobile every day, undoubtedly assimilating in largely unconscious ways the daily and seasonal ebb and flow of light, colors, birds, clouds and tides. And yet, few stop to consider its value and even fewer have visited or savored its interior waterways and remaining natural marshlands. This report has a second set of objectives: that is, to des­ cribe the range of human demands which increasingly threaten parts - - -1- - of the marsh, and to make recommendations which focus on specific problems and offer positive solutions. The recommendations essen­ tially take three forms: preservation and/or acquisition of the most vulnerable parts of the marsh; enhancement of areas that can be restored to tidal action to become once again viable marshland; and protection of the residual values of lands some of which are now committed to other uses but still offer marginal or supplemental .. habitat to resident and migratory wildlife. It is hoped, then, that this report will be useful to planners, to administrators, to landowners, and to others whose interests are diverse, serving as a guide to decisions which concern both conservation and appropriate development of the Napa Marsh. The report is part of a series of studies of critical California coastal wetlands which have also been addressed to the practical - need for management solutions. In addition, this series offers an information resource--in the form of compilations of technical data, interpretive descriptions, and bibliographies--for each of the coastal wetlands which have been identified as critical. This additional information regarding other California coastl wetland resources and their administration may be obtained from the other reports in the "Coastal Wetland Series" prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game.
Recommended publications
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    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.
  • San Francisco Bay Joint Venture

    San Francisco Bay Joint Venture

    The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Management Board Bay Area Audubon Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Institute The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Bay Planning Coalition California State Coastal Conservancy Celebrating years of partnerships protecting wetlands and wildlife California Department of Fish and Game California Resources Agency 15 Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Ducks Unlimited National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company PRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Estuary Partnership Save the Bay Sierra Club U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Wildlife Conservation Board 735B Center Boulevard, Fairfax, CA 94930 415-259-0334 www.sfbayjv.org www.yourwetlands.org The San Francisco Bay Area is breathtaking! As Chair of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, I would like to personally thank our partners It’s no wonder so many of us live here – 7.15 million of us, according to the 2010 census. Each one of us has our for their ongoing support of our critical mission and goals in honor of our 15 year anniversary. own mental image of “the Bay Area.” For some it may be the place where the Pacific Ocean flows beneath the This retrospective is a testament to the significant achievements we’ve made together. I look Golden Gate Bridge, for others it might be somewhere along the East Bay Regional Parks shoreline, or from one forward to the next 15 years of even bigger wins for wetland habitat.
  • San Francisco Bay Plan

    San Francisco Bay Plan

    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
  • Changes in Abundance and Distribution of Nesting Double-Crested Cormorants Phalacrocorax Auritus in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1975–2017

    Changes in Abundance and Distribution of Nesting Double-Crested Cormorants Phalacrocorax Auritus in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1975–2017

    Rauzon et al.: Changes in nesting Double-Crested Cormorants in San Francisco Bay area 127 CHANGES IN ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NESTING DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS PHALACROCORAX AURITUS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 1975–2017 MARK J. RAUZON1*, MEREDITH L. ELLIOTT2, PHILLIP J. CAPITOLO3, L. MAX TARJAN4, GERARD J. McCHESNEY5, JOHN P. KELLY6 & HARRY R. CARTER7† 1Laney College, Geography Department, 900 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94607, USA *([email protected]) 2Point Blue Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Drive, #11, Petaluma, CA 94954, USA 3Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, 115 McAllister Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 4San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, 524 Valley Way, Milpitas, CA 95035, USA 5US Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1 Marshlands Road, Fremont, CA 94555, USA 6Audubon Canyon Ranch, Cypress Grove Research Center, P.O. Box 808, Marshall, CA 94940, USA 7Humboldt State University, Department of Wildlife, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521, USA †Deceased Received 19 October 2018, accepted 13 February 2019 ABSTRACT RAUZON, M.J., ELLIOTT, M.L., CAPITOLO, P.J., TARJAN, L.M., McCHESNEY, G.J., KELLY, J.P. & CARTER, H.R. 2019. Changes in abundance and distribution of nesting Double-crested Cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus in the San Francisco Bay area, 1975–2017. Marine Ornithology 47: 127–138. In the San Francisco Bay area, California, the Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus population has recovered from significant declines to reach breeding population sizes comparable to those from the late 19th century, when only one colony offshore at the South Farallon Islands (SFI) was known.
  • San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge San Pablo Bay National the Tidal Wetlands

    San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge San Pablo Bay National the Tidal Wetlands

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge San Pablo Bay National the tidal wetlands. Wildlife Refuge can offer The refuge provides vital stretches of knee-high habitat for threatened and pickleweed, open bay endangered species, as well waters with rafts of as millions of migrating Canvasback ducks riding waterfowl, shorebirds and the currents, and the our local resident wildlife. timeless ebb and flow of Pickleweed © Peter Baye Welcome 121 More than 300 species of By the 1950s, only 25 percent of the wildlife can be found in the historical tidal marshes remained in Vallejo greater San Francisco Bay the estuary. Today, only 15 percent 37 estuary which includes of the bay’s historic tidal lands remain. San Pablo Bay NWR San Pablo Bay. Most use San Pablo Bay the estuary as a resting, Partnerships – Since the 1960s, conservation San feeding or wintering stop Our Roots agencies, non-profit organizations and Rafael 101 80 during their Pacific local grassroot efforts have worked to 580 Richmond Flyway migration. protect the Bay for its significance to migratory birds and resident wildlife. 580 San Pablo Bay National The northern Bay’s Napa-Sonoma Wildlife Refuge was Marshes are jointly managed with the 80 Oakland established in 1974 to California Department of Fish and Pacific 580 conserve, restore and Game. The Lower Tubbs Island Unit Ocean 101 San protect bay wetlands for was acquired with assistance from The Francisco San endangered species and Nature Conservancy. While the Solano AreaArea of 1 map Francisco Shown Bay migratory birds. County Farmlands and Open Space CALIFORNIA Foundation and California State USGS A variety of habitats can be found on Lower Tubbs Coastal Conservancy helped acquire the refuge along the north shore of the Cullinan Ranch/Napa Marsh Unit.
  • Species and Community Profiles to Six Clutches of Eggs, Totaling About 861 Eggs During California Vernal Pool Tadpole Her Lifetime (Ahl 1991)

    Species and Community Profiles to Six Clutches of Eggs, Totaling About 861 Eggs During California Vernal Pool Tadpole Her Lifetime (Ahl 1991)

    3 Invertebrates their effects on this species are currently being investi- Franciscan Brine Shrimp gated (Maiss and Harding-Smith 1992). Artemia franciscana Kellogg Reproduction, Growth, and Development Invertebrates Brita C. Larsson Artemia franciscana has two types of reproduction, ovovi- General Information viparous and oviparous. In ovoviviparous reproduction, the fertilized eggs in a female can develop into free-swim- The Franciscan brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana (for- ming nauplii, which are set free by the mother. In ovipa- merly salina) (Bowen et al. 1985, Bowen and Sterling rous reproduction, however, the eggs, when reaching the 1978, Barigozzi 1974), is a small crustacean found in gastrula stage, become surrounded by a thick shell and highly saline ponds, lakes or sloughs that belong to the are deposited as cysts, which are in diapause (Sorgeloos order Anostraca (Eng et al. 1990, Pennak 1989). They 1980). In the Bay area, cysts production is generally are characterized by stalked compound eyes, an elongate highest during the fall and winter, when conditions for body, and no carapace. They have 11 pairs of swimming Artemia development are less favorable. The cysts may legs and the second antennae are uniramous, greatly en- persist for decades in a suspended state. Under natural larged and used as a clasping organ in males. The aver- conditions, the lifespan of Artemia is from 50 to 70 days. age length is 10 mm (Pennak 1989). Brine shrimp com- In the lab, females produced an average of 10 broods, monly swim with their ventral side upward. A. franciscana but the average under natural conditions may be closer lives in hypersaline water (70 to 200 ppt) (Maiss and to 3-4 broods, although this has not been confirmed.
  • Public Facilities and Services

    Public Facilities and Services

    NAPA COUNTY BASELINE DATA REPORT CHAPTER 13 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES CHRONOLOGY OF UPDATE PURPOSE NOVEMBER 30, 2005—VERSION 1 The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive inventory of the existing public facilities and services in Napa County. Additionally, this chapter also provides a scientific basis for future Countywide, regional, and site-specific level assessments of project impacts and the evaluation of mitigation measures, conservation proposals, and enhancement opportunities for public facilities and services in Napa County. PARK PLAYGROUND NAPA COUNTY BASELINE DATA REPORT: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................................13-ii Capacity ..............................................................................................................................13-19 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................13-19 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................13-1 Service Standards...............................................................................................................13-19 Purpose ................................................................................................................................13-1 Specialized Terms ................................................................................................................13-1
  • Tidal Wetland Vegetation in the San Francisco Bay Estuary: Modeling Species Distributions with Sea-Level Rise

    Tidal Wetland Vegetation in the San Francisco Bay Estuary: Modeling Species Distributions with Sea-Level Rise

    Tidal Wetland Vegetation in the San Francisco Bay Estuary: Modeling Species Distributions with Sea-Level Rise By Lisa Marie Schile A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Maggi Kelly, Chair Professor Katharine Suding Professor Wayne Sousa Fall 2012 Tidal Wetland Vegetation in the San Francisco Bay Estuary: Modeling Species Distributions with Sea-Level Rise Copyright © 2012 by Lisa Marie Schile Abstract Tidal Wetland Vegetation in the San Francisco Bay Estuary: Modeling Species Distributions with Sea-Level Rise by Lisa Marie Schile Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California, Berkeley Professor Maggi Kelly, Chair Tidal wetland ecosystems are dynamic coastal habitats that, in California, often occur at the complex nexus of aquatic environments, diked and leveed baylands, and modified upland habitat. Because of their prime coastal location and rich peat soil, many wetlands have been reduced, degraded, and/or destroyed, and yet their important role in carbon sequestration, nutrient and sediment filtering, flood control, and as habitat requires us to further research, conserve, and examine their sustainability, particularly in light of predicted climate change. Predictions of regional climate change effects for the San Francisco Bay Estuary present a future with reduced summer freshwater
  • California Clapper Rail (Rallus Longirostris Obsoletus) 5-Year Review

    California Clapper Rail (Rallus Longirostris Obsoletus) 5-Year Review

    California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus ) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by Allen Edwards U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Sacramento, California April 2013 5-YEAR REVIEW California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. The California clapper rail was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1970, so was not subject to the current listing processes and, therefore, did not include an analysis of threats to the California clapper rail. In this 5-year review, we will consider listing of this species as endangered or threatened based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of this species. We will consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed.
  • 550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed

    550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed

    550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed Below. (a) State Wildlife Areas: (1) Antelope Valley Wildlife Area (Sierra County) (Type C); (2) Ash Creek Wildlife Area (Lassen and Modoc counties) (Type B); (3) Bass Hill Wildlife Area (Lassen County), including the Egan Management Unit (Type C); (4) Battle Creek Wildlife Area (Shasta and Tehama counties); (5) Big Lagoon Wildlife Area (Humboldt County) (Type C); (6) Big Sandy Wildlife Area (Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties) (Type C); (7) Biscar Wildlife Area (Lassen County) (Type C); (8) Buttermilk Country Wildlife Area (Inyo County) (Type C); (9) Butte Valley Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type B); (10) Cache Creek Wildlife Area (Colusa and Lake counties), including the Destanella Flat and Harley Gulch management units (Type C); (11) Camp Cady Wildlife Area (San Bernadino County) (Type C); (12) Cantara/Ney Springs Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type C); (13) Cedar Roughs Wildlife Area (Napa County) (Type C); (14) Cinder Flats Wildlife Area (Shasta County) (Type C); (15) Collins Eddy Wildlife Area (Sutter and Yolo counties) (Type C); (16) Colusa Bypass Wildlife Area (Colusa County) (Type C); (17) Coon Hollow Wildlife Area (Butte County) (Type C); (18) Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area (Merced County), including the Upper Cottonwood and Lower Cottonwood management units (Type C); (19) Crescent City Marsh Wildlife Area (Del Norte County); (20) Crocker Meadow Wildlife Area (Plumas County) (Type C); (21) Daugherty Hill Wildlife Area (Yuba County)
  • Changes in Breeding Population Size of Brandt's and Double-Crested

    Changes in Breeding Population Size of Brandt's and Double-Crested

    Changes in Breeding Population Size of Brandt’s and Double-crested Cormorants in California, 1975-2003 Phillip J. Capitolo1, Harry R. Carter1,4, Richard J. Young1, Gerard J. McChesney2, William R. McIver1,5, Richard T. Golightly1, and Franklin Gress3 1Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521 USA 2San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 524, Newark, California 94560 USA 3California Institute of Environmental Studies, 3408 Whaler Avenue, Davis, California 95616 USA Final Report for Contract # 10154-2-G106 between Humboldt State University Foundation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service July 2004 4Current Address: 5700 Arcadia Road, Apt. #219, Richmond, British Columbia V6X2G9 Canada 5Current Address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 USA Suggested Citation: Capitolo, P. J., H. R. Carter, R. J. Young, G. J. McChesney, W. R. McIver, R. T. Golightly, and F. Gress. 2004. Changes in breeding population size of Brandt’s and Double- crested Cormorants in California, 1975-2003. Unpublished report, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................
  • San Francisco Bay Plan

    San Francisco Bay Plan

    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 43 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 76 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 67 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, California 94105 tel 415 352 3600 fax 888 348 5190 State of California | Gavin Newsom – Governor | [email protected] | www.bcdc.ca.gov May 5, 2020 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: I am pleased to transmit this updated San Francisco Bay Plan, which was revised by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in the fall of 2019. The Commission approved two groundbreaking Bay Plan amendments – the Bay Fill Amendment to allow substantially more fill to be placed in the Bay as part of an approved multi-benefit habitat restoration and shoreline adaptation project to help address Rising Sea Levels, and the Environmental Justice and Social Equity Amendment to implement BCDC’s first- ever formal environmental justice and social equity requirements for local project sponsors.