DOCSLIB.ORG

NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NAPA, NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NAPA, NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 2008 NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NAPA, NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 2008 Federal Lead Agency U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration San Francisco Airports District Office NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NAPA, NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 2008 Federal Lead Agency U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration (650) 876-2778 Environmental Consultant Jim Wallace Environmental Consulting Services 233 North Andrew Avenue Port Townsend, WA 98368 Contact: Jim Wallace (360) 379-0623 This Environmental Assessment becomes a federal document when evaluated and signed by the responsible Federal Aviation Administration official. Responsible FAA Official: __________________________________ Date: _________ Draft Environmental Assessment CONTENTS Page Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Preface List of Acronyms 1.0 Purpose and Need Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Napa County Airport Area Overview................................................................................... 1-2 Airport Facilities ................................................................................................................... 1-3 Air Traffic ............................................................................................................................. 1-3 Federally Designated Critical Habitat .................................................................................. 1-4 Purposes and Need for Airport Improvements ..................................................................... 1-5 Schedule: Near-Term Development ..................................................................................... 1-8 Figure 1-1: Regional Location Map Figure 1-2: Napa County Airport 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Alternatives Development .................................................................................................... 2-1 Alternative 1- No Action .......................................................................................... 2-1 Airport Layout Plan ...................................................................................... 2-1 Taxiway ‘J’ Extension .................................................................................. 2-1 Perimeter (Security) Fence ........................................................................... 2-2 Property Acquisition: Borges Atkins............................................................ 2-2 Widen Airport Road Bridge.......................................................................... 2-2 Runway 6: Runway Safety Area Grading..................................................... 2-2 Extend Runway 36R ..................................................................................... 2-2 Glide Slope Indicator ................................................................................... 2-2 Alternative 2- Proposed Action ................................................................................ 2-2 Airport Layout Plan ...................................................................................... 2-2 Taxiway ‘J’ Extension .................................................................................. 2-2 Perimeter Fencing ....................................................................................... 2-3 Property Acquisition: Borges Atkins............................................................ 2-3 Widen Airport Road Bridge.......................................................................... 2-3 Runway 6: Runway Safety Area Grading..................................................... 2-4 Extend Runway 36R ..................................................................................... 2-4 Glide Slope Indicator ................................................................................... 2-4 Alternatives 3 through 9, Modified Action........................................................................... 2-5 Alternative 3: Do not extend Taxiway ‘J’................................................................. 2-5 Alternative 4: Do not Construct Security Fence....................................................... 2-5 Alternative 5: Do not Acquire Borges Atkins Property............................................ 2-5 Alternative 6: Do not Widen Airport Road Bridge................................................... 2-6 Napa County Airport Master Plan Draft Environmental Assessment Contents i January 2008 Draft Environmental Assessment Contents (continued) Page Alternative 7: Do not Grade RSA for Runway 6...................................................... 2-6 Alternative 8: Do not Extend Runway 36R .............................................................. 2-6 Alternative 9: Do not install a Glide Slope Indicator .............................................. 2-6 Actions Considered but Dismissed ....................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-1: Airport Layout Plan Figure 2-2: Existing and Proposed Condition 3.0 Affected Environments 3.1 Noise Background............................................................................................................... 3.1-1 Federal Guidelines .................................................................................................... 3.1-1 State Guidelines and Regulations ............................................................................. 3.1-1 Local Guidelines and Regulations ............................................................................ 3.1-2 Airport land Use Compatibility Plan ...................................................................... 3.1-3 Existing Conditions................................................................................................... 3.1-4 Future Conditions ................................................................................................... 3.1-5 Noise and Land Use ................................................................................................. 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-1: 60 Ldn Noise Contour Figure 3.1-2: Noise Contours: Existing Conditions Figure 3.1-3: 5-Year Noise Contour – 2012 Figure 3.1-4: Noise Contours - 2022 3.2 Compatible Land Use Land Ownership ...................................................................................................... 3.2-1 Land Uses at the Napa County Airport..................................................................... 3.2-1 Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Napa County Airport .......................................... 3.2-2 Relevant land Use Plans and Regulations................................................................. 3.2-4 Napa County AIASP ................................................................................................ 3.2-7 Napa County ALUC ................................................................................................ 3.2-7 Napa County Zoning Ordinance .............................................................................. 3.2-8 Land Use Compatibly .............................................................................................. 3.2-8 Table 3.2-1: Land Use Compatibility Criteria Figure 3.2-1: ALUC Compatibility Plan Figure 3.2-2: Land Uses Figure 3.2-3: Zoning Districts 3.3 Socioeconomic Environmental Justice, and Children’s Health and Safety Risks Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................ 3.3-1 Napa County Airport Master Plan Draft Environmental Assessment Contents ii January 2008 Draft Environmental Assessment Contents (continued) Page 3.0 Affected Environments (continued) Environmental Justice............................................................................................... 3.3-2 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts ............................................................................ 3.3-3 Table 3.3-1 Population Trends 3.4 Air Quality Climate and Meteorological Conditions ................................................................... 3.4-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................... 3.4-1 Air Quality Management at the State Level ............................................................ 3.4-1 Existing Air Quality Conditions in Napa Valley ...................................................... 3.4-2 Climate and Meteorological Conditions .................................................................. 3.4.2 Ozone ....................................................................................................................... 3.4-2 Carbon Monoxide .................................................................................................... 3.4-3 Inhalable Particulate Matter ..................................................................................... 3.4-3 General Conformity Threshold ................................................................................ 3.4-4 Table 3.4-1: Air Quality Standards 3.5 Water Quality Introduction............................................................................................................... 3.5-1 Climate – Rainfall....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report for FY2003 and California Implications -- February 27, 2003
    THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR FEDERAL POLICY RESEARCH 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003 202-546-3700 Fax: 202-546-2390 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.calinst.org SPECIAL REPORT: Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report for FY2003 and California Implications -- February 27, 2003 CONTENTS: On February 12, 2003, congressional negotiators agreed to a Department of Justice .................2 $397.4 billion FY03 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report, H.J. Res. 2, which incorporates the eleven unfinished appropriations measures Department of Commerce ..............3 for non-military domestic spending into one package. After four months Department of the Interior ..............4 passing temporary stop-gap spending measures to maintain government Army Corps of Engineers ..............6 operations, the House passed the bill on February 13 by a vote of 338-83, after the Motion to Recommit failed by a largely party line vote of 193- Department of Energy .................8 226. The Senate passed the Conference Report on February 14. Department of Labor ..................8 The final funding level is about $11.5 billion more than the Department of Health and Human Services $385.9 billion limit the White House had imposed on Congress. In order ................................9 to offset additional spending for education and other programs, the bill Department of Education ............. 12 includes a 0.65 percent across-the-board spending cut. However, Head Department of Transportation ......... 15 Start, the Space Shuttle program, VA medical care, and the Women Infants and Children’s (WIC) program are exempted from the cut. Department of Agriculture ........... 20 The following updates the preliminary analysis that the Department of Veteran Affairs .......
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
    Napa County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Calistoga Gllderport NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT [AND USE COMMISSION Daniel M. Jonas, Chairman (1989-91) Kathryn J. Winter, Chairperson (1991-92) Tony Holzhauer, Chairman (1 992-94) Mary E. Handel, Chairperson (1 994-95, 1998) John W. Whitridge, Ill, Chairman (1995-96) Juliana Inman, Chairperson (1996-98) Jim King, Chairman (1 998-2000) COMMISSION STAFF Jeffrey R. Redding, Executive Officer Michael Miller, Deputy Planning Director/ALUC Staff Laura J. Anderson, Deputy County Counsel SHUT[ MOEN ASSOCIATES STAFF Michael A. Shutt, Principal David P. Dietz, Director of Planning Projects Coleen AL more, Word Processing and Publication Todd Eroh, Graphics Technician Revised 12/15/99 Table of Contents PART I — INTRODUCTION 1 — INTRODUCTION PURPOSE 1-1 ROLE 1—1 Napa County Airport Land Use Commission 1-2 AUTHORITY 1-2 RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL PLANS 1-2 Overruling 1-4 GENERAL APPROACH 1-4 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN 1-5 2 — COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS NOISE IMPACTS 2-1 Assessment of Airport Impacts 2-1 Noise Compatibility Concepts 2-2 FLIGHT HAZARDS 2-4 Assessing Hazards to Flight 2-4 Limiting Flight Hazards 2-4 SAFETY 2-5 Assessing Safety mpacts 2-5 Limiting Risks of injury or Damage 2-5 OVERFLIGHT IMPACTS 2-6 Assessing Overfligh: Impacts 2-6 Overflight Compatibility Concepts 2-7 PART III * POLICIES, PLANS, AND CRITERIA 3— POLICIES SCOPE OF REVIEW 3-1 Geographic Area o’ Concern Types of Airport Impacts 3-1 Types of Actions Reviewed 3-2 Review Process 3-3 PRIMARY REVIEW POLICIES 3-4 Land
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Pittsburg
    City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan December 2018 City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan This page intentionally left blank. ii December 2018 City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan Emergency Operations Center Activation QuickStart Guide The City of Pittsburg (City) Emergency Operations Center (EOC) serves as support to the command and control by the on-scene incident response. When an incident occurs, there is often insufficient information to determine if the EOC should be activated or how long an activation may last. If this condition occurs, a virtual or partial EOC activation may be initiated. More detailed information on emergency activations levels is contained in Section 4.2.3. Once an EOC activation is commenced, the first arriving staff should use the QuickStart Guide to efficiently setup and operate the EOC. When activated, the EOC responds to the impacts that any incident has on employees, facilities, critical and other infrastructure, and business functions. The EOC carries out this function through: • Information Collection and Evaluation • Operational Planning • Resource Management • Priority Setting • Overall Priorities - Life/Safety - Incident Stabilization - Property Preservation iii December 2018 City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan EOC ACTIVATION CHECKLIST COMPLETED Date/Time TASK Activate the City EOC by assuming the role of EOC Director. Follow building inspection instructions. Consider which EOC should be activated based on damage and inspections. Establish the level of activation with the City Manager’s Office. Use Everbridge to send an EOC Activation notification to staff. The EOC Supply Cabinets are in various areas and contain appropriately titled boxes for each EOC Section. Place the appropriate material at each of the identified workstation locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Existing Conditions
    Buchanan Field Airport Master Planning Program Field A. INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Buchanan A > Inventory of Existing Conditions INTRODUCTION. Buchanan Field Airport (CCR) is the major general aviation reliever airport serving Contra Costa County and multiple communities located in the northeastern portion of the greater San Francisco Bay Area (see Figure A1). The Airport has been a catalyst for business growth in the region and has served as an anchor for the local employment base, as well as meeting the aviation transportation needs. Situated in an unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County, directly adjacent to the thriving urban heartbeat of the City of Concord, Buchanan Field Airport is a vital component of the transportation infrastructure serving the region for tourism and business. Buchanan Field Airport is well equipped to serve regional demand related to general aviation and business aviation needs. The Airport has a reputation as being an excellent aviation facility that offers a safe and efficient operational environment. The Bay Area continues to experience significant increases in business activity, commercial and residential growth, and economic development. Because of this, Buchanan Field Airport is also being presented with increasing operational and facility demands. Many of the areas surrounding the Airport, with many high quality homes and environmental amenities, have experienced significant residential development, resulting in homeowner concerns about the effect that the Airport may have on their lifestyle. Some of these homes and facilities are located within a two to three mile radius of the Airport. Thus, the Airport may influence the social, economic, and physical environments of the area in which it operates.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • American Canyon Emergency Operations Plan
    CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON AMERICAN CANYON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN 2009 - 1 - American Canyon Emergency Operation Plan LETTER OF PROMULGATION Approval Date: 11/17/2009 To: Officials, Employees and Citizens of American Canyon The preservation of life, property and the environment is an inherent responsibility of local, state, and federal government. The City of American Canyon has prepared this emergency operations plan to ensure the most effective and economical allocation of resources for protection of people and property in time of an emergency. While no plan can completely prevent death and destruction, good plans carried out by knowledgeable and well-trained personnel can and will minimize losses. This plan establishes the emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff and service elements utilizing the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The objective of this plan is to incorporate and coordinate all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding effectively to any emergency. This emergency operations plan is an extension of the State Emergency Plan. It will be reviewed and exercised periodically and revised as necessary to meet changing conditions. The American Canyon City Council gives its full support to this plan and urges all officials, employees and the citizens, individually and collectively, to do their share in the total emergency effort of American Canyon. This letter promulgates the American Canyon Emergency Operations Plan, constitutes the adoption of the American Canyon Emergency Operations Plan and the adoption of the National Incident Management System by the City of American Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life
    Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life JUNE 2003 PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Commercial/Primary (29) Metropolitan (20) Regional (66) Community (102) Limited Use (33) Joint Use — Military/Commercial (2) The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report was prepared with funds from a grant provided by the United States Government (80%) and funds from the State of California (20%). Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life FINAL REPORT Prepared for BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS Submitted by Economics Research Associates JUNE 2003 ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nancy Benjamin Alan R. Tubbs Study Project Manager District Field Services Manager California Department of Transportation Airborne Express, Mather Field Division of Aeronautics Chuck Oldham R. Austin Wiswell Robert Chung Chief California Transportation Commission California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics Carl Williams Senior Policy Director Michael Armstrong California Space Authority, Inc. (CSA) Senior Lead Planner Southern California Association of Governments Bonnie Cornwall (SCAG) Program Manager Division
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • California Clapper Rail (Rallus Longirostris Obsoletus) Population Monitoring: 2005-2008
    California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) Population monitoring: 2005-2008 Leonard Liu, Julian Wood, Nadav Nur, Diana Stralberg, and Mark Herzog PRBO Conservation Science 3820 Cypress Drive #11, Petaluma, CA 94954 FINAL September 29, 2009 Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Game 4001 N. Wilson Way Stockton, CA 95205 PRBO California Clapper Rail Monitoring Report, 2005-2008 FINAL Abstract PRBO Conservation Science conducted call-count surveys for California Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostrus obsoletus ) at 53 sites throughout the San Francisco Bay Estuary from 2005 through 2008. To maximize the spatial coverage of sites, surveys were coordinated with partners conducting call-count surveys (Avocet Research Associates, California Department of Fish and Game, California Coastal Conservancy’s Invasive Spartina Project, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) resulting in a total of 180 sites surveyed, covering all high-quality habitat and the majority of lower-quality habitat . We estimated annual site-specific density estimates using distance sampling and program DISTANCE and detected a negative short-term trend of -20.6% (±3.8%) from 2005 through 2008. There were no significant changes in densities from 2005 to 2006 or from 2006 to 2007. From 2007 to 2008, an Estuary-wide negative change was detected (-46.0%, ±6.75%) which was driven by a dramatic decrease in South San Francisco Bay (-57.4% ±5.0%). We tested the power to detect a 10-year trend for five different monitoring scenarios and found that detecting an Estuary-wide negative trend of 13.9% or greater over a 10-year period with 80% power is possible under the current monitoring design (90 sites/year with effort allocated equally among sites).
    [Show full text]