DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Mark West Watershed Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Mark West Watershed Management Plan Sonoma Resource Conservation District DRAFT Maacama and Upper Mark West Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan March 2015 1 Funding for this plan was provided by: California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Fisheries Restoration Grant Program, Agreement # P1030410 Sonoma Resource Conservation District Prepared By: Sonoma Resource Conservation District Kara Heckert, Executive Director Playalina Bojanowski, Resource Planner Anya Starovoytov, Resource Planner Kevin Cullinen, Project Manager This Plan follows the US EPA’s nine elements of an effective watershed plan. Its compilations consisted of data gathering and general watershed scoping that occurred as part of the previous watershed planning efforts, performed in the Maacama Creek watershed in 2004 and the Upper Mark West watershed in 2008 (Marcus/Sotoyome RCD, 2004; Sotoyome RCD, 2008) as well as inclusion of reports and studies that were completed after the time of these plans and assessments, and data collected from many scientific field surveys and monitoring efforts. 2 Acknowledgements The Sonoma Resource Conservation District (SRCD) gratefully acknowledges the dedication and hard work of SRCD staff members and stakeholders who contributed toward the completion of the Draft Maacama and Upper Mark West Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan (WMP). Contributors and reviewers include Sarah Nossaman, and Steven Swain, University California Cooperative Extension, Matt Deitch, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Drew Loganbill, Natural Resources Conservation Services, Sierra Cantor, Gold Ridge RCD, Derek Acomb, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wendy Eliot and John McCaull, Sonoma Land Trust, and Lisa Micheli, Pepperwood Preserve. The WMP could not have been completed without the long term involvement and participation of many rural and agricultural landowners who have allowed access to their properties for monitoring and stream assessments, and other surveys, which provided valuable information for current on-the ground conditions as well as important historical perspectives on the land use and natural resources in the watersheds. The WMP is a living document and the RCD will continue to seek ongoing input from the landowner community and our many partners to create common goals for watershed health and multiple lands use. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 2 ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 7 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 8 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................. 8 WATERSHED GOALS ................................................................................................................... 9 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ............................................................................................................ 12 CHAPTER 2. WATERSHED BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 14 REGIONAL SETTING .................................................................................................................. 14 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 19 HISTORY .................................................................................................................................... 20 LAND USE ................................................................................................................................. 23 GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 27 SOILS .......................................................................................................................................... 31 FISH AND WILDLIFE .................................................................................................................. 33 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 37 WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 43 INSTREAM AND RIPARIAN HABITAT ........................................................................................ 49 SEDIMENT SOURCES .................................................................................................................. 49 FORESTRY AND VEGETATION RESOURCES ............................................................................... 51 CLIMATE VARIABILITY ............................................................................................................... 55 SECTION 2. MANAGEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 57 CHAPTER 3. WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER 4. WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................. 66 WATER QUALITY CONCERNS ................................................................................................... 66 CONSERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 72 2 CHAPTER 5. INSTREAM AND RIPARIAN HABITAT .................................................... 76 FISH MONITORING AND SURVEYS ............................................................................................ 76 FOCAL SPECIES AND HABITAT .................................................................................................. 78 RIPARIAN CORRIDOR ORDINANCE .......................................................................................... 79 FISH PASSAGE ........................................................................................................................... 80 SURVEYED STREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS ................................................. 82 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ........................................................................................................ 90 CHAPTER 6. SEDIMENT SOURCES AND IMPACTS ...................................................... 93 EROSION PROCESSES IN MAACAMA AND MARK WEST WATERSHEDS ................................... 93 ROAD ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUES ................................................... 98 ROAD RELATED SEDIMENT SOURCE ASSESSMENTS ................................................................. 99 COMPLETED ROAD ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................................... 100 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ...................................................................................................... 103 CHAPTER 7. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL LAND PRESERVATION ................... 105 AGRICULTURAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 105 AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................... 105 CONSERVATION PLANNING ................................................................................................... 106 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS .................................................................................................. 107 THE WILLIAMSON ACT ........................................................................................................... 108 RURAL RESIDENTIAL ............................................................................................................... 108 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ............................................................................................. 109 CHAPTER 8. FOREST LAND PRESERVATION .............................................................. 111 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 111 CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS ................................................................................................ 111 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ...................................................................................................... 116 CHAPTER 9. CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION ............................... 118 CLIMATE VARIABILITY IMPACTS ............................................................................................ 118 CLIMATE PREDICTIONS AND CONCERNS ............................................................................... 122 3 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 124 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ...................................................................................................... 124 SECTION 3. IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................. 127 CHAPTER 10. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................ 128 PLAN LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
    SOUTHEAST GREENWAY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING DRAFT EIR CITY OF SANTA ROSA HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This chapter includes an evaluation of the potential environmental consequences associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project that are related to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, this chapter describes the environmental setting, including regulatory framework and existing conditions, and identifies mitigation measures, if required, that would avoid or reduce significant impacts. 4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.8.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal Regulations Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, as administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), seeks to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The CWA employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA authorizes the USEPA to implement water-quality regulations. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under Section 402(p) of the CWA controls water pollution by regulating stormwater discharges into the waters of the United States. California has an approved State NPDES program. The USEPA has delegated authority for water permitting to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Region 1). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each state identify water bodies or segments of water bodies that are “impaired” (i.e., not meeting one or more of the water-quality standards established by the state).
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Water Management Plan
    PhasePhase IIII NPDESNPDES StormStorm WaterWater ManagementManagement PlanPlan March 2005 Prepared By WINZLER&KELLY CONSULTING ENGINEERS Town of Windsor Phase II NPDES Storm Water Management Plan Project No. 03-228303-003 Project Contacts: Toni Bertolero Project Manager [email protected] Brian Bacciarini Staff Scientist [email protected] Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers 495 Tesconi Circle, Suite 9, Santa Rosa, California 95401 Phone: (707) 523-1010 Fax: (707) 527-8679 March 2005 Reviewed by:__________ Date:__________ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Background...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Regulatory Background..................................................................................................1 1.2 Town Resources .............................................................................................................2 1.2.1 Public Works Department..................................................................................2 1.2.2 Planning Department..........................................................................................2 1.2.3 Building Division ...............................................................................................3 1.2.4 Economic Development and Community Services Department .......................3 1.2.5 Administrative Services Department .................................................................3 1.3 Outside Agencies............................................................................................................3
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 2010 Recipients of 5 Star Grant Program (PDF)
    2010 Five Star Recipients Alabama Project Title: Tapawingo Springs Wetlands Restoration (AL) Organization: Freshwater Land Trust Award Amount: $14,980 Project Location: The project is located at the foot of Sand mountain along Tapawingo Road in northeastern Jefferson County, Alabama. Project Description: Conduct riparian wetland habitat restoration of abandoned residential property concentrating on re-establishing wetland hydrology and native species and eradication of invasive species. Project Title: Village Creek Trail and Restoration (AL) Organization: Freshwater Land Trust Award Amount: $20,620 Project Location: Birmingham and Jefferson Counties Project Description: Construct and maintain a trail system along the Village Creek head waters. Project will include invasive plant removal, wetland enhancement, and bioswale construction. California Project Title: Audubon Bobcat Ranch Oak Woodland Corridor (CA) - III Organization: National Audubon Society Award Amount: $40,000 Project Location: Putah Creek Watershed, Yolo County Project Description: Create an ecological connection between the Dry Creek tributaries and the main channel of Putah Creek in Yolo County. Project will create a wild-way managed by landowners. Project Title: Cooley Landing Restoration and Education (CA) Organization: City of East Palo Alto Award Amount: $40,000 Project Location: East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, San Mateo County Project Description: Restore nine acres of upland habitat for endangered clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse. Project will create a new passive recreation park and environmental and history education center. Project Title: Cresta Riparian Habitat Enhancement and Education (CA) Organization: Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Award Amount: $20,000 Project Location: Project is located along Porter Creek in the Mayacamas Mountains of northeastern Sonoma County.
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [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]
  • A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River
    A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored by Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting August 1996 Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Quality P. O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored By Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 August 1996 (707) 743-1815 (707) 743-1816 f«x [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Introduction This report gathers together the best available information to provide the historical and current status of chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Although the historical records are limited, all sources depict a river system where the once dominant salmonids have declined dramatically. The last 150 years of human activities have transformed the Russian River basin into a watershed heavily altered by agriculture and urban development. Flows in the main river channel river are heavily regulated. The result is a river system with significantly compromised biological functions. The anthropogenic factors contributing to the decline of salmonids are discussed. Study Area The 1,485 square mile Russian River watershed, roughly 80 miles long and 10 to 30 miles wide, lies in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. The basin topography is characterized by a sequence of northwest/southeast trending fault-block ridges and alluvial valleys. Lying within a region of Mediterranean climate, the watershed is divided into a fog-influenced coastal region and an interior region of hot, dry summers.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Glimpses of the Laguna De Santa Rosa
    “Crystal Laughing Waters” – Historical Glimpses of the Laguna de Santa Rosa by John Cummings December 2003 Copyright – John Cummings, December 20 ©John Cummings, 2003 All rights reserved 2 INTRODUCTION While a visitor to Sebastopol in 1898 described the Laguna as “crystal laughing waters” in the Sebastopol Times, the description is very fanciful. The Laguna is physically a very low flow stream with a fall of at most about 40 feet in the 14 miles between Cotati and the Russian River (a drop of less than three feet per mile – less than two feet per mile north of Sebastopol). While draining a relatively large watershed of 250 square miles – about 16% of the acreage of Sonoma County, the Laguna would have always been a relatively warm stream prone to cloudy water of low water quality – certainly not “crystal”– even in the “pristine” Laguna conditions prior to European settlement of the region in the 1830s. The Laguna north of Sebastopol typically floods its banks to some extent during the winter rainy season and usually does not flow during the late summer, but forms a series of ponds and dry channels. The post-European changes in acreage of habitat types and the abundance of wildlife in the Laguna area in the pristine and the early settlement period, is well established. But from a water quality point of view, post-European settlement made the “natural” poor water conditions of the Laguna highly degraded by, for example, making the water warmer yet by agricultural clearing of the riparian forest shading the waterway or by increasing nutrification of the water with farm wastes, urban sewage and cannery wastewater, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Friends, Sonoma County Is Celebrating the Winter and Spring Rains Which Have Left Our Rivers and Creeks with Plenty of Clea
    This picture of Mark West creek was taken in April by our intern, Nick Bel. Dear Friends, Sonoma County is celebrating the winter and spring rains which have left our rivers and creeks with plenty of clear clean water going into summer. Many of CCWI’s water monitors have noted that local rivers and creeks have more water and are more beautiful than they have been in the past several years. This is a very promising start to the summer season, but we should not let our guard down just yet. Several years of drought have left us with a shortage of water in many reservoirs so we must still be conscious of how we use and protect this precious resource. CCWI has a new program Director! Art Hasson joined the Community Clean Water Institute in 2008 as an intern and volunteer water monitor. Art has a business degree from the State University of New York, which he has put to good use as our new program director. He has updated our water quality database engaged in field work, performed flow studies and bacterial analysis for the past two years. Art is focused on protecting our public health through the preservation of our waterways. CCWI would like to thank outgoing program director Terrance Fleming for his hard work and valuable contributions to protect water resources. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors. CCWI would like to thank our donors for their support in building our online database interactive database. It contains nine years of data that CCWI volunteer water monitors have collected on local creeks and streams in and around Sonoma County.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Meanderings Spring 2021.Indd
    Meanderings Restore, Conserve & Inspire: Nurturing a Healthy Laguna Spring 2021 THE WONDERFUL, INDISPENSABLE WORLD OF WETLANDS! BY ANNE MORKILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The Laguna Celebrates Its 10 Year Anniversary as a Wetland of International Importance Weighing in at approximately 4.4 ounces and 490 pounds, respectively, a California tiger salamander and a Royal Bengal tiger seemingly have little if anything in common. The former lives in the Santa Rosa Plain’s vernal pools in the Laguna de Santa Rosa watershed and the latter in the largest remaining contiguous mangrove forest in the world, the Great Sundarbans in India; but, their fate is intertwined. For both of these endangered species, survival is dependent on wetlands. Of the 19,500 threatened species worldwide, 25% are found in wetlands. Here in the United States, a whopping 43% of all endangered species are dependent on wetlands. Today, natural wetlands are threatened ecological communities. Worldwide, wetlands are disappearing three times faster than forested areas. To save the most valuable and vulnerable, an intergovernmental treaty known as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands was created in 1971. This is the only global treaty to focus on a single ecosystem. The Laguna and Great Sundurbans are just two examples of the more than 2,300 sites across 170 countries recognized by the treaty as Wetlands of International Importance for their This delicate and globally significant ecosystem is also home many and varied ecological benefits. to the majority of Sonoma County’s human population, which relies upon the Laguna for water quality, flood control, Thanks to you, we’re celebrating the tenth anniversary of the scenic beauty, cultural heritage, and recreation.
    [Show full text]