DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 7 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Volume 7 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR Volume 7 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR The 34th America’s Cup & James R. Herman Cruise Terminal and Northeast Wharf Plaza San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2010.0493E State Clearinghouse No. 2011022040 Draft EIR Publication Date: July 11, 2011 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: August 11, 2011 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: July 11, 2011 – August 25, 2011 Comments and Responses Publication Date: December 1, 2011 Final EIR Certification Date: December 15, 2011 Volume 7 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR The 34th America’s Cup & James R. Herman Cruise Terminal and Northeast Wharf Plaza San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2010.0493E State Clearinghouse No. 2011022040 Draft EIR Publication Date: July 11, 2011 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: August 11, 2011 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: July 11, 2011 – August 25, 2011 Comments and Responses Publication Date: December 1, 2011 Final EIR Certification Date: December 15, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS The 34th America’s Cup Races and James R. Herman Cruise Terminal and Northeast Wharf Plaza Comments and Responses Document Page Volume 5 9. Introduction to Comments and Responses 10. List of Persons Commenting 11. Project Updates and New Project Variants 12. Responses to Comments 12.1 Organization of Responses to Comments 12.2 General Comments 12.3 Introduction 12.4 Project Description 12.5 Plans and Policies 12.6 Impact Overview 12.7 Land Use 12.8 Aesthetics 12.9 Population and Housing 12.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 12.11 Transportation and Circulation Volume 6 12. Responses to Comments (continued) 12.12 Noise and Vibration 12.13 Air Quality 12.14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 12.15 Wind and Shadow 12.16 Recreation 12.17 Utilities and Service Systems 12.18 Public Services 12.19 Biological Resources, Upland 12.20 Biological Resources, Marine 12.21 Geology and Soils 12.22 Hydrology and Water Quality Case No. 2010.0493E i The 34th America’s Cup and James R. Herman 210317 Cruise Terminal and Northeast Wharf Plaza Table of Contents Page Volume 6 (continued) 12. Responses to Comments (continued) 12.23 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 12.24 Mineral and Energy Resources 12.25 Agriculture and Forest Resources 12.26 Other CEQA Issues 12.27 Alternatives 13. Draft EIR Revisions Volumes 7 and 8 – Appendices Volume 7 COM. Comment Letters and Emails COM‐1 PH. Public Hearing Transcripts PH‐1 Volume 8 PD. Supplemental Project Description Supporting Information CP. Supplemental Historical Resources Supporting Information AQ. Supplemental Air Quality Supporting Information TR. Supplemental Transportation Technical Appendix Case No. 2010.0493E ii The 34th America’s Cup and James R. Herman 210317 Cruise Terminal and Northeast Wharf Plaza APPENDIX COM Comment Letters and Emails This appendix contains copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR, including comments submitted either by letter, fax, or email. Transcripts of oral comments presented at the public hearing on the Draft EIR are included in a separate appendix, Appendix PH. Written comments are grouped under one of three categories: public agencies, non‐governmental organization, or individuals. Tables summarizing all of the commenters in each of these three categories are presented in Chapter 10 of the Comments and Responses document and are repeated in this appendix at the beginning of each of the three groups of comments. Within each category, commenters are organized in alphabetical order by code. To facilitate the commenter in locating the responses to his or her comments, the EIR assigns a unique commenter code plus one or more topic code to each individual comment, as explained below. Both the commenter and topic codes are shown in the margin of each written comment, with the unique commenter code shown first and the topic code(s) in square brackets beneath the commenter code. This information shown in the margins of each written comment serves as the cross‐reference guide for the commenter and topic codes. Commenter Codes This document assigns a code to each comment letter, email, comment card, and public hearing transcript based on the name of the agency, organization, or individual submitting the comment. Comments submitted by mail, email, facsimile, comment card, or orally at the public hearing (as transcribed in the official public hearing transcript) are all coded and numbered the same way. Each commenter code has three parts. It begins with a prefix indicating whether the commenter is from a public agency (A) or non‐governmental organization (O) or is an individual (I). This is followed by a hyphen and the acronym of the agency or organization, or the individual’s last name. The third part of the code is the sequential numbering of individual comments within a letter or email that represents a distinct topic. The first two parts of the commenter codes is shown in bold at the top of each page of every written comment, and the third part is shown in the margin along side the individual bracketed comment. Only substantive comments received on the Draft EIR are bracketed; for example, comments that describe an agencyʹs or organizationʹs mission or that reiterate or quote sections of the EIR are not bracketed. As an example of the commenter coding system, the comment letter from the National Park Service is coded A‐NPS, and the first comment in the letter is coded A‐NPS‐01, the second Case No. 2010.0493E COM‐1 The 34th America’s Cup and James R. Herman 210317 Cruise Terminal and Northeast Wharf Plaza Appendix COM Comment Letters and Emails comment on a different topic is coded A‐NPS‐02, etc. If a single agency, organization, or individual submitted comments more than once (or spoke at the public hearing in addition to submitting written comments), a number is inserted at the end of the identifying initials. For example, the National Park Service submitted comments both at the public hearing and in a letter; the first comment set is coded as A‐NPS1, and the second set is A‐NPS2. The subsequent sequential numbers denote the individual comments from that commenter (e.g., A‐NPS1‐01, A‐NPS1‐02, A‐NPS1‐03, etc.). Topic Codes The prefixes for the topic codes used in the organization of Chapter 12, Responses to Comments, are shown below: General Comments: GEN Wind and Shadow: WS Introduction: INT Recreation: RE Project Description: PD Utilities and Service Systems: UT Plans and Policies: PP Public Services: PS Impact Overview: IO Biological Resources, Upland: BIU Land Use: LU Biological Resources, Marine: BIM Aesthetics: AE Geology and Soils: GE Population and Housing [PH] Hydrology and Water Quality: HY Cultural and Paleontological Resources: CP Hazards and Hazardous Materials: HZ Transportation and Circulation: TR Mineral and Energy Resources: ME Noise and Vibration: NO Agriculture and Forest Resources: AG Air Quality: AQ Other CEQA Issues: OC Greenhouse Gases Emissions: GG Alternatives: AL Within each topic area, similar comments are grouped together, and Chapter 12 provides a comprehensive response to those related comments under one topic code. Topic codes are numbered sequentially using the topic code prefix and sequential numbering for each subtopic. For example, General Comments [GEN] are listed as [GEN‐1], [GEN‐2], [GEN‐3], and so on. Under each topic code in each section of Chapter 12, all of the commenter codes that are addressed under each topic code as a cross‐reference. As described above, topic codes are shown in this appendix in the margin of each written comment in square brackets underneath the commenter code. Several comment letters included attachments. These attachments did not address the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR. They are listed in the table below and available for review on file at the Planning Department. A‐DTSC Requirements for Generators of Treated Wood Waste O‐ACEC Cupʹs yacht plan threatens our wide‐open bay views, John King, SF Chronicle O‐ACEC Letter RE: Temporary Shutdown of Publicly Funded Shoreside Power Installation for Cruise Ships at Pier 27; TIRN & NRDC O‐ACEC Water Quality Volume and Flow Rate Calculator Case No. 2010.0493E COM‐2 The 34th America’s Cup and James R. Herman 210317 Cruise Terminal and Northeast Wharf Plaza Appendix COM Comment Letters and Emails O‐ACEC Letter RE: Application for 401 Water Quality Certification ‐‐ The 34th Americaʹs Cup Races and James R. Herman Cruise Terminal; Baykeeper O‐ACEC Incomplete Application for Water Quality Certification for the 34th Americaʹs Cup Races and James R. Herman Cruise Terminal Project, San Francisco County; RWQCB O‐ACEC Water Supply and Demand: Planning for the Future; SFPUC presentation O‐ACEC Arc Ecology Letter O‐ACEC ʺ2011 San Francisco Residential Development Pipeline,ʺ San Francisco Business Times A‐OPR RWQCB letter A‐OPR DTSC letter A‐OPR State Lands Commission letter O‐CPCFC Crissy Field Center Program Reach O‐EOP The San Francisco Ferry Building Comprehensive Access and Parking Study O‐GGNPC Crissy Field Center Program Reach O‐NRDC San Francisco Bay areas of porpoise and dolphin concentrations O‐RBACS untitled map O‐TIRN Letter RE: Temporary Shutdown of Publicly Funded Shoreside Power Installation for Cruise Ships at Pier 27; TIRN & NRDC O‐WW Port of San Francisco Historic Preservation Review Guidelines for Pier and Bulkhead Wharf Structures, with appendices I‐Paul ʺ2011 San Francisco Residential Development Pipeline,ʺ San Francisco Business Times Case No. 2010.0493E COM‐3 The 34th America’s Cup and James R. Herman 210317 Cruise Terminal and Northeast Wharf Plaza Appendix COM Comment Letters
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Accessibility Guide SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME National Historical Park | Ca San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park
    National Park Service | Department of the Interior Accessibility Guide SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK | CA San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Accessibility Guide Table of Contents Accessibility Guide............................................................................................................................... 1 Meeting Everybody’s Needs – An Overview ........................................................................................... 2 Planning Your Visit ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Personal Assistance Requests: Please Call 5 Days in Advance.................................................................... 3 Disabled Parking Placards – For Out-of-State Visitors................................................................................... 3 Check for Updates Online ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Arriving and Parking ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Landscape and Main Pathways................................................................................................................................. 4 Park Website...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Monitoring Approaches for Large Bay-Delta Estuarine Wetland Restoration Projects Adapting to Uncertainty Or Novelty During Accelerated Climate Change
    Alternative Monitoring Approaches for Large Bay-Delta Estuarine Wetland Restoration Projects Adapting to Uncertainty or Novelty during Accelerated Climate Change Montezuma Wetlands 2015 Sears Point Wetlands 2015 Peter R. Baye Coastal Ecologist [email protected] Delta Science Program Brown Bag Lunch – February 17, 2016 Estuarine Wetland Restoration San Francisco Bay Area historical context ERA CONTEXT “First-generation” SFE marsh restoration • Regulatory permit & policy (CWA, (1970s-1980s) McAteer-Petris Act, Endangered Species Act • compensatory mitigation • USACE dredge material marsh creation national program; estuarine sediment surplus “Second-generation” SFE marsh restoration • Goals Project era transition to regional planning and larger scale restoration • Wetland policy conflict resolution • Geomorphic pattern & process emphasis 21st century SFE marsh restoration • BEHGU (Goals Project update) era: • Accelerated sea level rise • Estuarine sediment deficit • Climate event extremes, species invasions as “new normal” • advances in wetland sciences Estuarine Wetland Restoration San Francisco Bay Area examples ERA EXAMPLES First-generation SFE marsh restoration • Muzzi Marsh (MRN) (1970s-1980s) • Pond 3 Alameda (ALA) Second-generation SFE marsh restoration • Sonoma Baylands (SON) (1990s) • Hamilton Wetland Restoration (MRN) • Montezuma Wetlands (SOL) 21st century SFE marsh restoration • Sears Point (SON) (climate change) • Aramburu Island (MRN) • Cullinan Ranch (SOL) • Oro Loma Ecotone (“horizontal levee”) (ALA) • South Bay and Napa-Sonoma
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Swimmers Revel in Experience Despite Traffic, Bites, and Pathogens
    ESTUARY 1 SCIENCE • RESTORATION • WATERSHED • POLITICS SPECIES BAY • WATERSHED SCIENCE • RESTORATION San Francisco Estuary Partnership Bay Swimmers Revel in Experience Despite Traffic, Bites, and Pathogens Slot Limits for Sevengills? Cocktail of Six Antibotics, Three Anti-Depressants, and One Anti-Diabetic Medicating our Bay Estuary Managers Confront Coastal Challenges Green Cement Blues Sierra to Sea Reflowed NE WS DECEMBER 2018 VOL. 27, NO. 4 Pharmaceuticals . 2 Bay Swimming . 3 Shark Fishing . 5 Hunters Point . 7 Sierra to the Sea . 9 Estuary Programs . 13 Harbor Seals . 15 Sediment Mounds . 16 Cement Plant . 18 2 DECEMBER 2018 ESTUARY NEWS MONITORING ill effects. Also on the list are three antidepressants, a class that has been shown to have physiological effects on mollusks, crustaceans, Medicating the Bay algae, and protozoans, and to impact fish survival and reproduction. NATE SELTENRICH, REPORTER large Brita filter of activated REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FOUR DRUGS Pharmaceuticals are pouring into carbon with sand and gravel,” the Bay, even if we never flush pills. explains Karin North, 1,000,000 watershed protection High Removal Efficiency influent Compounds in painkillers and other effluent common oral drugs are still excreted manager for the city of Palo 100,000 from our bodies, routed through Alto. “It just gets those small wastewater treatment plants that particles out, and since a lot 10,000 of these contaminants like to can’t remove them completely, then Low Removal Efficiency discharged to the Bay where they may sorb onto the solids, that’s 1,000 harm marine life. where you might find them.” 100 The problem isn’t unique to In order to fully remove pharmaceuticals, says North, (ng/L) Concentration the Bay Area, affecting waterways 10 worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan
    Wetlands and Water Resources, Inc. 818 Fifth Avenue, Suite 208 San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel 415.457.0250 Fax 415.457.0260 www.swampthing . org Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan April 19, 2010 Prepared for: Richardson Bay Audubon Sanctuary 376 Greenwood Beach Road Tiburon, CA 94920 In Partnership with: Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 Project No. 1145 Prepared in Collaboration with: Roger Leventhal, PE, FarWest Restoration Engineering Peter Baye, PhD Planning Assessment Design Implementation Applied Science This page intentionally left blank Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan 19 April 2010 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 HISTORY OF RICHARDSON BAY ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 HISTORY OF ARAMBURU ISLAND AND HARBOR SEAL HAUL‐OUT .................................................................................... 3 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND HABITATS ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SFBJV Active Projects, November 2019 Page 1
    SFBJV Active Projects, November 2019 Project Funding Needs Project Name County Description Acres Lead Rank 3-5 yr Alameda Creek Diversion Dam This project will reduce water diversions and construct a fish Alameda Creek Tier 1 Alameda NA $0 Fish Passage ladder and fish screens on the Alameda Diversion Dam. Alliance This project aims to restore a run of steelhead trout to Alameda Alameda Creek Fisheries Creek. Removal of barriers, improved flows, and other Alameda Creek Tier 1 Alameda NA $12,000,000 Restoration improvements will help support steelhead spawning and Alliance rearing and ultimately restore steelhead fisheries. This project will design and install a fish ladder on the northern Alameda County embankment of the flood control channel and Alameda County Alameda Creek Upper Rubber Water District, Tier 1 Alameda Water District's Rubber Dam No. 3. The fish ladder will help 0.1 $0 Dam No. 3 Fish Ladder Alameda Creek facilitate fish migration through the lower section of Alameda Alliance Creek. The East Bay Regional Park District is converting the former Naval Air Station for use as wildlife habitat and public East Bay Regional Alameda Point Restoration Tier 1 Alameda 660 $0 parkland. This project will extend access to restored shoreline Park District areas and will help support an endangered least tern colony. The project enhanced Albany Beach by arresting beach erosion and expanding dune and wetlands, and constructed wetland Albany Beach Restoration and and rain garden features to improve water quality. Current East Bay Regional Public Access Project - Tier 1 Alameda 3 $4,000,000 work includes completing a key segment of the SF Bay Trail, Park District McLaughlin Eastshore State Park expanding public shoreline access, and constructing visitor amenities.
    [Show full text]
  • Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan
    Wetlands and Water Resources, Inc. 818 Fifth Avenue, Suite 208 San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel 415.457.0250 Fax 415.457.0260 www.swampthing . org Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan April 19, 2010 Prepared for: Richardson Bay Audubon Sanctuary 376 Greenwood Beach Road Tiburon, CA 94920 In Partnership with: Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 Project No. 1145 Prepared in Collaboration with: Roger Leventhal, PE, FarWest Restoration Engineering Peter Baye, PhD Planning Assessment Design Implementation Applied Science This page intentionally left blank Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan 19 April 2010 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 HISTORY OF RICHARDSON BAY ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 HISTORY OF ARAMBURU ISLAND AND HARBOR SEAL HAUL‐OUT .................................................................................... 3 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND HABITATS ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cosco Busan Oil Spill NRDAR Focus on Aramburu: the Little Island That Could
    Cosco Busan Oil Spill NRDAR Focus on Aramburu: The Little Island that Could Janet Whitlock, Toby McBride, - USFWS Rachel Spadafore – Richardson Bay Audubon Center and Sanctuary San Francisco Bay • Largest Estuary on the Pacific Coast of North America • Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network Highest possible ranking – Home to close to 1 million shorebirds • Center for Biological Diversity: Nation’s 6 most important bio- diversity hotspots – Over 500 species of invertebrates and 500 species of vertebrates • Diverse and rich shoreline habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, fish, and other species Cosco Busan Oil Spill • November 7, 2007 – Cosco Busan container ship strikes San Francisco Bay Bridge – Releases 53,500+ gallons of Fuel Oil – 3,000 birds collected, over 100 miles of shoreline oiled Cosco Busan Oil Spill Golden Gate San Francisco Collision • Majority of impacts in the Central Bay • Oiling along outer coast from Pt Reyes in the north to Half-Moon Bay in the south Beach Disturbance and Wrack Removal Hot Water Washing Kirby Cove Albany Angel Island Stege Marsh Manual Cleaning and Vegetation Cutting Trampling and Removal NRDA Injuries • 6,800 birds estimated dead: 65 species – Primarily Diving ducks (Scaup and Scoter) – Cormorants, Common Murres, Grebes – T&E species - Snowy Plover and Marbled Murrelets also impacted • Estimated up to ~25% of 2007-08 herring spawn lost due to egg mortality from oil exposure • 3,300+ acres of shoreline habitat impacted • Over 1 million user days of human recreational uses (surfing, recreational fishing, beach use etc.) NRDA Restoration: $32.3 million • Lost Human Uses: $18.8 Million • Herring : $2.5 Million • Birds: $5 Million • Shoreline Habitats: $4 Million • T.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosco Busan Oil Spill: Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan
    Cosco Busan Oil Spill Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/ Environmental Assessment February xx, 2012 Prepared by: California Department of Fish and Game California State Lands Commission National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Bureau of Land Management This page left intentionally blank. Cosco Busan Oil Spill FINAL Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment February xx, 2012 Suggested Citation Cosco Busan Oil Spill Trustees. 2012. Cosco Busan Oil Spill Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment. Prepared by California Department of Fish and Game, California State Lands Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management. FACT SHEET Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / Environmental Assessment for the Cosco Busan Oil Spill Trustee Agencies: California Department of Fish and Game, California State Lands Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management. Abstract: The Natural Resource Trustee Agencies (Trustees) present a description and quantification of the injuries as well as the final selected restoration projects to compensate for the impacts of the Cosco Busan Oil Spill that occurred in San Francisco Bay on November 7, 2007. The spill affected wildlife (primarily birds and fish), habitat (primarily rocky
    [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]
  • Infill Or Bay Fill?
    FROM THE DIRECTOR PROJECT TO PARTNERSHIP When is a project no longer a project but recognized as a large-scale collaborative effort expected to continue for years to come? That is S the question we asked ourselves a few months back. After discussions among the staff and the Implementation Committee, we have W become the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, to better reflect the real nature of our work. We are pleased to unveil our new name, logo, NE and newsletter look, and to recommit ourselves ESTUARYBay-Delta News and Views from the San Francisco Estuary Partnership | Volume 17, No.3 | June 2009 to protecting, restoring, and enhancing the resources of our beloved Estuary. INFILL OR BAY FILL? epending on whom you ask, the reincarnation of 1,433 acres of South Bay crystallizer ponds along the shores of Redwood City as a residential/recreational development with a wetland restoration component is either a spectacular example of new urbanist infill or poorly-timed Bay fill—and one Dof the largest Bay fills proposed in years. The proposal—known as the “Redwood City Saltworks”— by Cargill Salt and DMB Associates to build housing, along with soccer, baseball, football fields, and some One of our new collaborations is with River restored wetlands, has spawned two local ballot measures (both of which failed), and a raging debate over of Words (www.riverofwords.org), in which we the best use of these salt crystallizer ponds still owned and used by Cargill. The property was not included in sponsored a K-12 environmental art and poetry the public acquisition of the South Bay Salt Ponds in 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Alcatraz Island: Alternative 3, Focusing on National Treasures (The Nps Preferred Alternative)
    ALCATRAZ ISLAND: ALTERNATIVE 3, FOCUSING ON NATIONAL TREASURES (THE NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Revisions are based on discussions with CLR team, February 3, 2010. Approved by Steering Committee, February 12, 2010 – with revisions, 2/17/10 Formatted: Font: Bold OVERVIEW For more than 150 years, Alcatraz Island has been reworked and altered by human activity. This alternative would immerse visitors extensively in all of Alcatraz’s historic periods, including the Civil War military fortifications and prison, federal penitentiary, and American Indian occupation. Alcatraz’s history would be interpreted, first and foremost with tangible and accessible historic resources, including the structures, buildings, ruins, cultural landscape, archeology, and museum collection. These resources contribute to the island’s national historic landmark status and its recognition as an international icon. The visitor’s immersion in Alcatraz history would begin on a ferry from one or more embarkation points that could include the original Alcatraz dock at Fort Mason. Passing a line of historic warning buoys, the experience would continue at the island’s arrival dock, with greater access to restored portions of Building 64, the historic barracks. Visitors would ascend to the Main Prison Building on the summit through a landscape of preserved historic structures and features. While the primary visitor experience would focus on the federal penitentiary, visitors also would be exposed to the other layers of history, literally and programmatically. This alternative would require extensive stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration of historic buildings and small scale landscapes features, as well as creative interpretative and educational programs and visitor services. It would create additional opportunities for cultural resource stewardship programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Breaks 3
    PRISON BREAKS 3 The larger than life story of Mark DeFriest, an infamous prison escape artist - the "Houdini of Florida" - whose notoriety and struggle with mental illness threaten his quest to be freed after 31 years behind bars. Animation from the Florida State Hospital escape sequence Mark DeFriest's life is living history. At age 19, his original sentence was for a nonviolent property crime, but because of additional punishment for escapes, he has spent his entire adult life behind bars. DeFriest has survived 31 years in prison, most of it in longterm solitary confinement in a custom cell above the electric chair at Florida State Prison. He has been raped, beaten, shot and basically left for dead, but he has somehow lived to tell the tale. When he was sent to prison in 1981, five out of six doctors declared that he was mentally incompetent to be sentenced. They warned the judges that Mark couldn't learn better behavior and needed treatment. Instead, he was allowed to plead guilty, even at one point to a Life Sentence. The documentary brings this story to life. True to the psychiatrists' expectations, Mark has amassed an astonishing number of disciplinary reports in prison for things like possession of escape paraphernalia, but also for behavioral violations like telling the guards his name was James Bond. "He's a little bit crazy, a little bit manipulative, but not really a bad person", as his former lawyer puts it. Apparently that point was lost on the system, as Mark has always been held with the worst of the worst.
    [Show full text]