DOCSLIB.ORG

Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR a Refuge Permit Is Required to Hunt, Place a Boat, Zones the Refuge to Retrieve Downed Birds, P.O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR a Refuge Permit Is Required to Hunt, Place a Boat, Zones the Refuge to Retrieve Downed Birds, P.O Hunting Information U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Salt Ponds - Refuge Permit Required Retrieving Hunters may enter closed areas of Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR A Refuge Permit is required to hunt, place a boat, Zones the refuge to retrieve downed birds, P.O. Box524 maintain hunt blinds, and improve existing hunt blinds provided they leave all weapons in a Newark, California 94560 in the salt ponds listed below. Hunting is only allowed legal hunting area. The use of 510fl92-0222 on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays on these ponds. Huntable Only ducks, geese, and coots may retriever dogs is encouraged. http://www.fws.gov/desfbay Don Edwards Hunt blinds are only accessible by boat. During the two Species be hunted on the refuge. All other However, dogs must remain under weekends before the hunting season begins, hunters may wildlife is protected. immediate control of the handler at California Relay Service all times. ~oor a boat at a designated site. These boats are to stay TTY 1 800fl35 2929 San Francisco Bay m the pond for the entire season. Launching into creeks Fees A fee will be charged to hunt ponds Voice 1 800fl35 2922 and sloughs is prohibited from refuge levees. Boats must requiring a Refuge Permit (ABl, A2E, Weapons and Shotguns are permitted in designated be removed within two weeks following the close of the AB2, A3N, A3W, A5, A7, and A8). Ammunition hunting areas during the waterfowl National Wildlife Refuge hunting season only. Only approved U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hunt season. Only non-motorized, electric, or 4-stroke Call the refuge at 510/792-0222 for http://www.fws.gov gasoline boats are permitted in these ponds. more information. non-toxic shotshells are permitted. Firearms must be unloaded until you For Refuge information 1 800/344 WILD 1. Ponds ABl, A2E, AB2, A3N, and A3W. Licenses All hunters must carry a valid are within the designated hunt area. Waterfowl Hunting These ponds are located on the west end of the bay California hunting license. Waterfowl between Stevens Creek and Guadalupe Slough. hunters 16 years or older must also Hunting Hunters at Ravenswood may bring Access to Ponds ABl and A2E is from the Crittenden possess a valid, signed, Federal Duck Blinds portable blinds or construct temporary blinds of natural materials that readily -w-NATIONAL Lane Trailhead in Mountain View. Access to Pond Stamp, a state duck stamp, and the WILDLIFE decompose. Collection of these natural REFUGE A3W is from the Carl Road Trailhead in Sunnyvale. Harvest Information Program SYSTEM materials from the refuge is prohibited. I Roads to these ponds will be opened to private participation stamp. vehicles when levee roads are dry. Access to Ponds Temporary blinds are not the builder's September 2005 A3N and AB2 is by boat from the other ponds. Permits In addition to licenses listed above, property, and become available for Shooting is allowed only from existing hunt blinds. a Refuge Permit is required to hunt general use on a first-come basis on in Ponds ABl, A2E, AB2, A3N, A3W, subsequent days. Permanent blinds, 2. Ponds A5, A7, and A8. These ponds are located A5, A7, and A8N. A permit application pit blinds, and digging into levees are on the south end of the bay between Guadalupe may be obtained in person during prohibited. Hunters may not enter Slough and Alviso slough. Access is via walking normal business hours from the closed areas of the refuge prior to and bicycling from the Gold Street gate in Alviso. Refuge Headquarters at 1 Marshlands hunting season in order to scout for Shooting is allowed from existing hunt blinds Road, Fremont, or by mail at P. 0. hunting sites or build blinds. For and by walking on pond levees. Box 524, Newark, CA 94560. The blinds in Ponds ABl, A2E, AB2, A3N, refuge will accept permit requests A3W, A5, A7, and A8, hunters may starting the first Tuesday of maintain an existing blind on hunt September. days. Blinds will be open for general use on a first-come basis. During the Reservations No reservations are required. two weekends before opening of the hunting season, hunters may enter Hunting Waterfowl hunting season extends these ponds to maintain or improve an Season, Days, from approximately mid-October to existing blind. and Hours mid-January. See "Hunting Areas" in this brochure for hunting days. Accidents All accidents and injuries occurring Hunting is permitted from one half­ on the refuge must be immediately hour before sunrise until sunset. reported to the Refuge Manager, Don More specific information is contained Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR, in California Hunting Regulations, PO Box 524, Newark, CA 94560. Waterfowl. Phone 510/792-0222. Alcohol Use or possession of alcoholic Removal All decoys and other personal property beverages while hunting is prohibited. of Personal (except personal boats authorized by a Property Refuge Permit) must be removed from Bag and Hunting limits vary from year to year; the refuge at the end of each day. Possession read California Hunting Regulations, You must remove all trash, including Limits Waterfowl, for up-to-date information. shotshell hulls when leaving hunting areas. Hunting Areas Tidal Areas MAP LEGEND Tidal areas include salt marshes, sloughs, mudflats, and open water of San Francisco Bay. Unless posted in the -·-·-•-) Refuge Boundary field and/or noted below, all tidal areas in the refuge are open seven days a week to hunting from a boat, and only ____...... Levee up to the mean high water line. Fremont Salt Evaporation The following tidal areas are closed to hunting: Ponds D 1. Newark Slough is closed to hunting and shooting Tidal Areas from its source to the Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct, a distance of 3 miles. D 2. Dumbarton Point Marsh to the Hetch-Hetchy Open Water Aqueduct (west side of Newark Slough) is closed to hunting and shooting. 3. The headwaters of Mallard Slough, in the vicinity Marshes of the Environmental Education Center, are closed to hunting. Hunt Areas D Salt Ponds - No Refuge Permit Required Salt evaporation ponds are artificial bodies of water, Visitor Center created by dredging marshes and surrounding them with levees. Bay water is confined in these ponds and m evaporated to produce salt. Only non-motorized, electric, Environmental or 4-stroke gasoline boats are permitted in these ponds. Education Center Redwood City II The salt ponds listed below are the only ones in which Boat Launch hunting is permitted seven days a week. Shooting from Miles levees is prohibited unless hunting the Ravenswood unit. 0 2 3 I! Parking 1. Ponds Rl and R2 in the Ravenswood Unit. These ponds are located on the west side of the m Dumbarton Bridge between Ravenswood Slough 0 2 3 -Kilometers Alviso and Hwy 84. These ponds are accessible by foot or bicycle from either of two trailheads off Hwy 84. Hunting is prohibited within 300 feet of Hwy 84. 2. Ponds Ml to M6, and A19 in the Mowry Slough Don Edwards Unit. These ponds are located on the east side of the bay between Mowry Slough and Coyote Creek. Access to these ponds is only by boat. Boats may Palo Alto be landed on the bay side of the levee. Boats may San Francisco Bay be pulled across the levee from the bay. Hunting is prohibited within 300 feet of the Union Pacific National Wildlife Refuge Railroad tracks. All Refuge hunting areas are subject to city ordinances and county regulations. Call the local police department for specific regulations. Lawrence Expressway .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BAYLANDS & CREEKS South San Francisco
    Oak_Mus_Baylands_SideA_6_7_05.pdf 6/14/2005 11:52:36 AM M12 M10 M27 M10A 121°00'00" M28 R1 For adjoining area see Creek & Watershed Map of Fremont & Vicinity 37°30' 37°30' 1 1- Dumbarton Pt. M11 - R1 M26 N Fremont e A in rr reek L ( o te C L y alien a o C L g a Agua Fria Creek in u d gu e n e A Green Point M a o N l w - a R2 ry 1 C L r e a M8 e g k u ) M7 n SF2 a R3 e F L Lin in D e M6 e in E L Creek A22 Toroges Slou M1 gh C ine Ravenswood L Slough M5 Open Space e ra Preserve lb A Cooley Landing L i A23 Coyote Creek Lagoon n M3 e M2 C M4 e B Palo Alto Lin d Baylands Nature Mu Preserve S East Palo Alto loug A21 h Calaveras Point A19 e B Station A20 Lin C see For adjoining area oy Island ote Sand Point e A Lucy Evans Lin Baylands Nature Creek Interpretive Center Newby Island A9 San Knapp F Map of Milpitas & North San Jose Creek & Watershed ra Hooks Island n Tract c A i l s Palo Alto v A17 q i ui s to Creek Baylands Nature A6 o A14 A15 Preserve h g G u u a o Milpitas l Long Point d a S A10 A18 l u d p Creek l A3N e e i f Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity Creek & Watershed Calera y A16 Berryessa a M M n A1 A13 a i h A11 l San Jose / Santa Clara s g la a u o Don Edwards San Francisco Bay rd Water Pollution Control Plant B l h S g Creek d u National Wildlife Refuge o ew lo lo Vi F S Environmental Education Center .
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Report
    APPENDIX A Biological Resources Report Residence Inn and Event Center Biological Resources Report Project #3660-01 Prepared for: David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San José , CA 95126 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates December 2015 Rev. January 2016 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ i Section 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Section 2.0 Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Section 3.0 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 General Project Area Description ........................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Biotic Habitats ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Berryessa Recycling Facility
    Oracle Design Tech Charter School Civil Improvements Biological Resources Report Project #3732-01 Prepared for: Shannon George David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates 9 October 2015 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Property Description ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Existing Land Use and Topography ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Proposed Site Development .................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Background Review ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Datum Errors for West Coast of the United States (California, Oregon, Washington)
    Tidal Datum Errors for West Coast of the United States (California, Oregon, Washington) Standard deviation (or accuracy) of Tidal Datum Computations: The time period necessary to incorporate all of the major astronomical tide producing cycles into the computation of a tidal datum is 19-years. All tidal datums are referenced to specific 19-year National Tidal Datum Epochs (NTDE). First reduction tidal datums are determined directly by averaging values of the tidal parameters over a 19-year NDTE. Errors in determination of tidal datums using First Reduction for the 19-year NTDE are theoretically zero. NTDE datums for short-term subordinate stations are computed and adjusted to a 19-year NTDE equivalent using simultaneous comparison with an appropriate nearby control station (NOS, 2003, Swanson, 1974, and Marmer, 1951). See Gill and Fisher, 2008: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Technical_Memorandum_NOS_COOPS_0048.pdf for the areas of coverage for tidal datum computation for each National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) control tide station. Errors in determination of tidal datums at short-term stations through the method of simultaneous comparison are known to be generally correlated with the length if the subordinate station observations, with geographic distance from the control station and with difference in range of tide and time of tide between control and subordinate stations. In applied research performed by Bodnar (1981), multiple curvilinear regression equations estimating the accuracy of computed 19-year equivalent tidal datums were developed. The formulas for Mean Low Water were adopted for use in estimating tidal datum errors because the low water differences express the effects of shallow water and bottom friction better than MHW.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Issue 42 Fall 2012 the Year 2012 Marks the 40Th
    Newsletter Issue 42 Fall 2012 The year 2012 marks the 40th anniversary of the passage of the bill that established the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. It seems appropriate to reflect not only on our successes and where we go from here, but also how our baylands would be different if the members of the South San Francisco Baylands Planning, Conservation and National Wildlife Refuge Committee, had not been successful. Florence LaRiviere reflects: “ If our determined group had not met in 1967, committed to establishing a national wildlife refuge on the Bay, I shudder to imagine the view from what is the Refuge Headquarters in Fremont today. You probably couldn’t get to that spot to begin with, because the upscale houses covering the hill would be gated. But suppose you were able to make your way through the buildings, then stand atop that hill to look The efforts of the South San Francisco Baylands around. To the west, residential developments for forty to fifty thousand people would Planning, Conservation and National Wildlife Refuge Committee helped forever preserve this wonderful be where the salt ponds exist there today. Then, turn around and look east; not one view. speck of green marsh would be visible where the buildings stop today; instead, solid Photo Courtesy of Sam High development would stretch as far as the eye can see. If that image doesn’t shock you, drive down to Alviso, and climb the stairs at the Inside this issue: handsome Education Center nestled in the winter marsh. The land would have been indefinitely exploited for industrial usage.
    [Show full text]
  • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Coast Guard Action Special Local Regulation and Safety Zone, America's Cup Sailing Events, San Fran
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Coast Guard Action Special Local Regulation and Safety Zone, America’s Cup Sailing Events, San Francisco, CA April 15, 2012 PREPARED FOR: Department of Homeland Security U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 34TH AMERICA’S CUP‐COAST GUARD ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1‐1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 Purpose and Need for The Action .......................................................................................... 1‐3 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 1‐4 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ............................................................................... 1‐4 1.5 Summary of Laws ..................................................................................................................... 1‐4 1.6 Summary of Regulations ......................................................................................................... 1‐6 1.7 Summary of Policies ................................................................................................................. 1‐7 1.8 Scoping Process and Public Participation ............................................................................. 1‐8 1.9 Issues and Impact Topics ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation June 30, 2004
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation June 30, 2004 INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT (ISP) PHASE II- CONTROL PROGRAM AT: COYOTE CREEK/MOWRY SLOUGH, OLD ALAMEDA CREEK, AND WHALE’S TAIL MARSH 99-054 Project Manager: Maxene Spellman RECOMMENDED ACTION: Amendment of the Conservancy’s September 25, 2003 authorization to disburse funds from existing CALFED grants for the removal of invasive Spartina by authorizing the supplemental disbursement of up to $119,500 of CALFED funds and up to $50,000 of Conservancy funds as grants for expanded and additional Spartina control and treatment demonstration projects within the southern San Francisco Bay Estuary and for a signage program associated with the demonstration projects. LOCATION: The baylands, creeks and sloughs of southwestern Alameda County. PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location and Site Map Exhibit 2: September 25, 2003 Staff Recommendation Exhibit 3: Environmental Documentation: Site-specific Plans and Checklists for Proposed Expanded and New Demonstration Projects RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31160-31164 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby amends its September 25, 2003 authorization for grants for control and treatment under the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) Control Program by authorizing the supplemental disbursement of up to one hundred nineteen thousand five hundred dollars ($119,500) of existing CALFED funds to carry out expanded and new control and treatment demonstration projects under the ISP Control Program and up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) of Conservancy funds to implement a signage program for the demonstration projects, for a total disbursement of three hundred fifty thousand one hundred dollars ($ 350,100).
    [Show full text]
  • South San Francisco Bay Weed Management Plan 1St Edition
    South San Francisco Bay Weed Management Plan 1st Edition Prepared by Meg Marriott, Rachel Tertes and Cheryl Strong U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1 Marshlands Road, Fremont, CA 94555 For: Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project November 20, 2013 Literature Citation Should Read As Follows: Marriott, M., Tertes, R. and C. Strong. 2013. South San Francisco Bay Weed Management Plan. 1st Edition. Unpublished report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fremont, CA. 82pp. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Site Description and History ..................................................................................................................... 6 Weed Management Areas ......................................................................................................................... 7 WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 12 Weed Management Program Goals .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Harbor Seal (Phoca Vitulina) Population Dynamics and Survival in Northern California
    WILD HARBOR SEAL (PHOCA VITULINA) POPULATION DYNAMICS AND SURVIVAL IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA A thesis submitted to the faculty of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree Master of Science In Marine Science by Suzanne Camille Manugian San Francisco, California December 2013 Copyright by Suzanne Camille Manugian 2013 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read Wild harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) population dynamics and survival in northern California by Suzanne Camille Manugian, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree: Master of Science in Marine Science at San Francisco State University. ________________________________________________ James T. Harvey Director, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories ________________________________________________ Ellen Hines Professor, Department of Geography and Environment ________________________________________________ Benjamin Becker Director and Marine Ecologist, Pacific Coast Science and Learning Center WILD HARBOR SEAL (PHOCA VITULINA) POPULATION DYNAMICS AND SURVIVAL IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Suzanne Camille Manugian San Francisco, California 2013 Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) within San Francisco Bay (SFB) have been described as stable compared with those in coastal northern California, like Tomales Bay (TB). Historical data (1970s – early 2000s) indicated an overall increase in adults and pup production. Recent data, however, revealed SFB and TB adult counts decreased while pup production increased. There is a paucity of life history data, such as survival rates, for northern California harbor seals. For 32 radio-tagged adult females, survival was 98.2% over 20 months 2011 through 2013, constant between bays and influenced by an individual’s axillary girth.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Background Report
    standards are based on the California Building Code and any local amendments to the Building Code. 5.0 FLOODING 5.1 Flood Prone Areas and Flood Control Programs The primary causes of flooding are excessive surface runoff resulting from heavy rainfall, extremely high tides, and the failure of flood control or water supply structures such as levees and reservoirs. Although it is not possible to prevent excessive rainfall, it is possible to manage areas subject to flooding to protect life and property. Through the use of hydrologic data, regulatory controls, and flood proofing measures, land use planning can effectively reduce flood hazards. Flooding generally occurs in some of the lower elevations of Fremont near San Francisco Bay. FEMA maps of the 100-year flood zone primarily indicate flood hazards in the marshes and alluvial terraces adjacent to the outlets of Crandall Creek, Newark Slough, Plummer Creek, Mowry Slough, and Coyote Slough. Additional flooding occurs around Lake Elizabeth (see Figure 5). Most of the city’s flood prone areas have been designated for permanent open space such as salt ponds, parks, and wetlands. However, a 100-year flood could affect portions of the Northern Plain Planning Area, the city’s industrial areas west of I-880 and south of Warren Avenue, and along Laguna Creek. Extensive flooding along Alameda Creek and adjacent farms and roads in 1955 and 1958 prompted the creation of the Alameda County Flood Control District (later the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, or ACFCWCD). The ACFCWCD redirected the creek into a 200-foot-wide, 10-mile-long flood control channel.
    [Show full text]