DOCSLIB.ORG

Sediment Accumulation in San Leandro Bay, Alameda County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION IN SAN LEANDRO BAY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DURING THE 20th CENTURY A PRELIMINARY REPORT by K.M. Nolan and C.C. Fuller U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4057 Prepared in cooperation with the ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT o i O CO Sacramento, California August 1986 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report write to: may be purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch Federal Building, Room W-2234 U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Cottage Way Box 25425, Federal Center Sacramento, CA 95825 Denver, CO 80225 Telephone: (303) 236-7476 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract ................. 1 Results of investigation ....... 9 Introduction.............. 2 Isotope studies .............. 9 Description of study area 2 Bathymetric surveys ........ 15 Previous studies.......... 5 Discussion of results .......... 17 San Leandro Bay....... 5 Sedimentation rates and San Francisco Bay .... 5 submergence .............. 17 Study methods .......... 6 Effects of changes in bay Isotope studies ........ 6 configuration .............. 19 Lead-210 ............ 6 Sediment sources ............ 20 Cesium-137 .......... 8 Evidence from isotope Field methods ....... 8 studies.................. 22 Analytical methods .. 9 Summary and additional studies 23 Bathymetric surveys .. 9 References cited .............. 24 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figures 1-3. Maps showing: 1. Location of San Leandro Bay and nearby drainage basins ................................ 2. Location of San Leandro Bay ..................... 3. Location of cores analyzed for radioisotopes and location of cross profiles used in bathymetric comparison ..................................... 10 4. Graphs showing plot of lead-210, radium-226, and cesium-137 activity versus depth for cores SLB01, SLB05, SLB08, and SLB09 ....................... 12 5. Map showing water depths below mean lower-low water in San Leandro Bay in 1856 and 1983 ............... 16 6. Graphs showing examples of postdredging and 1983 cross profiles at the mouth of San Leandro Creek .. 18 7. Graph snowing cross product of wind direction and frequency at the Oakland International Airport .... 20 TABLES Page Table 1. Summary of radioisotope data from San Leandro Bay sediment cores ................................... 11 2. Sedimentation in channel dredged at mouth of San Leandro Creek, September 1948 to August 1983 .. 17 3. Total sediment yield for Cull Creek................. 21 4. Size distribution of sediment in core SLB06 ........ 22 Contents 111 CONVERSION FACTORS The metric system of units is used in this report. For readers who prefer inch-pound units, the conversion factors for the terms used in this report are listed below. Metric (SI) Multiply by Inch-pound cm (centimeter) 0.03280 feet cm/a (centimeter per annum) 0.03280 feet per annum cm 3 (cubic centimeter) 0.00003531 cubic feet cm 3 /g (cubic centimeter 0.001602 cubic feet per gram) per pound dpm/a (disintegrations per minute per annum) g (gram) 0.002204 pounds g/cm 2 (grams per square 2.047 pounds per square centimeter) feet (g/cm 2 )/a (grams per square 2.047 pounds per square centimeter per annum) feet per annum g/cm 3 (grams per cubic 62.46 pounds per cubic centimeter) feet hm (hectometer) 2.471 acres km 2 (square kilometer) 0.3861 square miles m (meter) 3.281 feet m 3 (cubic meter) 1.308 vcubic yards Mg (megagram) 1.102 tons Mg/a (megagram per annum) 1.102 tons per annum Mg/km 2 (megagram per 2.855 tons per square square kilometer) miles mm (millimeter) 0.03937 inches pCi/g (picocuries per gram) 0.002204 picocuries per pound IV Conversion Factors SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION IN SAN LEANDRO BAY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DURING THE 20th CENTURY: A PRELIMINARY REPORT by K.M. Nolan and C.C. Fuller ABSTRACT Major changes made in the con­ range in sedimentation rates would re­ figuration of San Leandro Bay, Alameda quire measuring the activity of lead-210 County, California, during the 20th on incoming sediments. century have caused rapid sedimentation In addition to sediment deposited in within parts of the bay. Opening of the the vicinity of the San Leandro Bay Oakland tidal channel and removal of 97 channel and open, shallow areas to the percent of the marshlands formerly east, 850,740 cubic meters of sediment surrounding the bay have decreased tid­ was deposited between 1948 and 1983 in al velocities and volumes. Marshland re­ an area dredged at the mouth of San moval has decreased the tidal prism by Leandro Creek. All available data indi­ about 25 percent. Comparison of cate that between 1,213,000 and bathymetric surveys indicates that sedi­ 1,364,000 cubic meters of sediment was mentation in the vicinity of the San deposited in San Leandro Bay between Leandro Bay channel averaged 0.7 centi­ 1948 and 1983. meter per annum between 1856 and 1984. Sediment-yield data from an adjacent Lead-210 data collected at four shallow drainage basin, when combined with in­ water sites east of the San Leandro Bay ventories of lead-210 and cesium-137, channel indicate that sedimentation rates indicate that most of the sediment depos­ have averaged between 0.06 and 0.28 ited in San Leandro Bay is coming from centimeter per annum. Because biotur- resuspension of bottom sediments or from bation of bottom sediments cannot be erosion of marshes or shorelines of San discounted, better definition of this Leandro or San Francisco Bay. Abstract 1 INTRODUCTION the bay, manmade changes in bay con­ figuration, and the potential for direct input of sediment from upland drainages. San Leandro Bay is a small shallow arm of southern San Francisco Bay near Oak­ land, Alameda County, California (figs. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 1 and 2). Configuration of this bay, as well as that of the surrounding San Leandro Bay covers about 2.59 marshes and mudflats, has changed km 2 and averages only 1.6 m deep at greatly since the early 1900's. The mean tide level. At mean lower-low hydrographic survey of 1896 depicted water, extensive mudflats are exposed, San Leandro Bay as a shallow body of and open water is limited to about 15 water surrounded by marshes and percent of the bay. Nearly all parts of mudflats and connected to San Francisco San Leandro Bay deeper than 0.9 m at Bay by the San Leandro Bay channel. mean higher-high water have been In 1902, the Oakland tidal channel was dredged. Dredging was concentrated in dredged to connect San Leandro Bay three areas: the Oakland tidal channel, with the Oakland Harbor. By 1972, the Airport Channel, and a distinct rec­ iandfilling had decreased marshland and tangular area at the mouth of San associated mudflats adjacent to the bay Leandro Channel (fig. 2). The Airport by more than 96 percent from about 810 Channel was dredged in 1928 to provide hm in 1922 to 28.4 hm by 1977 (U.S. docking facilities for the U.S. Navy Army Corps of Engineers, 1980). Supply Center (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1980). The area at the mouth The Alameda County Flood Control and of San Leandro Channel was dredged to Water Conservation District is concerned a depth of 10.7 m in 1948 and was in­ that recent changes in the configuration tended as a docking area for deep-water of the bay have increased sedimentation ships. rates and that this sedimentation has de­ creased the capacity of flood-control Streamflow enters San Leandro Bay channels draining into San Leandro Bay. through four major channels: East This report was prepared in cooperation Creek, Damon, Elmhurst, and San with the Alameda County Flood Control Leandro. According to the U.S. Army and Water Conservation District to pro­ Corps of Engineers (1980), the East vide a preliminary assessment of rates Creek channel drains 14.5 km 2 and and causes of sedimentation in San Streamflow is from Courtland, Peralta, Leandro Bay. Sediment-accumulation rates and Seminary Creeks; Damon Channel were estimated by comparing bathymetric drains 26.4 km 2 and Streamflow is from surveys made in 1856 and 1984, and by Lion Creek and Arroyo Viejo; and the measuring the activity of the isotopes Elmhurst and San Leandro Channels lead-210 and cesium-137 in four sediment drain 6.0 and 124 km 2 , respectively, and cores taken from the bay. Sediment Streamflow is from Elmhurst and San accumulation between 1948 and 1983 in Leandro Creeks (figs. 1 and 2). an area dredged at the mouth of San Leandro Channel was determined by The drainage basins of all streams comparing bathymetric data from 1948 draining into San Leandro Bay contain with data collected in 1983. The causes large areas of gently sloping urban, of sedimentation were assessed by com­ suburban, and industrial land. The paring excess lead-210 and cesium-137 headwaters of Arroyo Viejo and San activity with fallout of these isotopes on Leandro Creek drain steep nonurbanized the bay surface and by interpreting land. Flow in the upper 11.1 km 2 of the sedimentation rates within San Leandro San Leandro Creek drainage basin is Bay in light of the physical processes controlled by reservoirs operated by the controlling sediment deposition within East Bay Municipal Utilities District. 2 Sediment, San Leandro Bay, CA 37°45 122° 15' EXPLANATION Loe Angeles - DRAINAGE DIVIDE O 5* San Diego 5*r+ 3 2 KILOMETERS -hO LOCATION MAP I in aC 37'45' 122°15' -» FIGURE 1.- Location of San Leandro Bay and nearby drainage basins. 0) 122°12'30" 37°45' U.S. Highway 17 To Oakland Airport (1.5 km) 122° N 12' 30" 500 METERS I 37°45' FIGURE 2.- Location of San Leandro Bay, Circulation of water within San San Leandro Bay occurred for 7 hours Leandro Bay with water in San Francisco through the Oakland tidal channel but Bay is limited to flow through the Oak­ for only 3.5 to 4 hours through the San land tidal and San Leandro Bay chan­ Leandro Bay channel.
Recommended publications
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin

    Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin

    Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city.
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
  • About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service

    About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service

    About WETA Maintenance Facility will consolidate Central and South Bay fleet operations, include a fueling facility with emergency fuel The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation storage capacity, and provide an alternative EOC location, Authority (WETA) is a regional public transit agency tasked with thereby significantly expanding WETA’s emergency response operating and expanding ferry service on the San Francisco and recovery capabilities. Bay, and is responsible for coordinating the water transit response to regional emergencies. Future Present WETA is planning for a system that seamlessly connects cities in the greater Bay Area with San Francisco, using Today, WETA operates daily passenger ferry service to the fast, environmentally responsible vessels, with wait times cities of Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco, Vallejo, and South of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. WETA’s San Francisco, carr4$)"(*- /#)тѵр million passengers 2035 vision would expand service throughout the Bay Area, annually under the San Francisco Bay Ferry brand. Over the operating 12 services at 16 terminals with a fleet of 44 vessels. last five years, SF Bay Ferry ridership has grown чф percent. In the near term, WETA will launch a Richmond/San Francisco route (201ш) and new service to Treasure Island. Other By the Numbers terminal sites such as Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda, Berkeley, Mission Bay, Redwood City, the South Bay, and the Carquinez *- /#)ǔǹǒ --$ ./-).+*-/0+ Strait are on the not-too-distant horizon. ($''$*)-$ -. /*ǗǕǑ$& .-*.. 0. 4 --4 /# 4 #4ǹ 1 -44 -ǹ A Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service --4-$ -.#$+ 1 )! --$ . Vallejo #.$)- . /*!' / /2 )ǓǑǒǘ CARQUINEZ STRAIT Ǚǖʞ.$) ǓǑǒǓǹ )ǓǑǓǑǹ Hercules WETA Expansion Targets Richmond Funded Traveling by ferry has become increasingly more popular in • Richmond Berkeley the Bay Area, as the economy continues to improve and the • Treasure Island Partially Funded Pier 41 Treasure Island population grows.
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal

    Pinolecreeksedimentfinal

    Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully
  • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

    Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

    December 20, 2012 San Francisco HQ Atlanta PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Chicago Dallas Property Identification: Edgewater Park Plaza 7700 Edgewater Drive Oakland, Alameda County, California 94621 Denver AEI Project No. 315265 Irvine Prepared for: Los Angeles CCIG 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 340 Oakland, California 94612 Miami Prepared by: New York AEI Consultants 2500 Camino Diablo Walnut Creek, California 94597 (925) 746-6000 Phoenix Portland San Jose PROJECT SUMMARY Edgewater Park Plaza 7700 Edgewater Drive, Oakland, Alameda County, California Report Section No REC HREC BER Recommended Action Further Action 2.1 Current use of X subject property 2.2 Adjoining X property information 3.1 Historical X X Summary 4.0 Regulatory X X Agency Records Review 5.0 Regulatory X Database Records Review 6.3 Previous Reports X X 7.0 Site Inspection X and Reconnaissance 7.2.1 Asbestos- X X Containing Materials 7.2.2 Lead-Based Paint X X 7.2.3 Radon X 7.2.4 Lead in Drinking X Water 7.2.5 Mold X Project No. 315265 December 20, 2012 Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AEI Consultants (AEI) was retained by CCIG to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-05 and the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312) for the property located at 7700 Edgewater Drive in the City of Oakland, Alameda County, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.3 of this report.
  • Battle on Many Fronts

    Battle on Many Fronts

    RISING REALITY The Risk The Embarcadero The Future The Shorelines Resources Battle on many fronts The Bay Area faces a common threat along its shores, but must meet it with an array of ambitious and creative responses By John King November 2016 Boardwalks along the edge of the Alviso Salt Marsh restoration project allow visitors to enjoy the surrounding area on the edge of San Francisco Bay in Alviso. Michael Macor, The Chronicle The levee that rings Oakland International Airport seemingly has nothing in common with the salt­crusted stretch of flat land alongside Menlo Park’s Bayfront Park. One is a 7­foot­high line of boulders, an engineered barrier between the tidal flows that surge in through the Golden Gate twice daily and the runways used by 10,000 commercial flights every month. The other is quiet desolation, a white void dotted with stagnant pools of water. Both, though, are examples of the Bay Area shoreline at risk from the long­term effects of sea level rise — and reminders that there’s no single way to prepare for what might lie ahead. RISINGThe REALITY correct remed yThe in someRisk areas The of Embarcadero shoreline will in vTheolv eFuture forms of naThetural Shorelines healing, wi thResources restored and managed marshes that provide habitat for wildlife and trails for people. But when major public investments or large residential communities are at risk, barriers might be needed to keep out water that wants to come in. It’s a future where now­isolated salt ponds near Silicon Valley would be reunited with the larger bay, while North Bay farmland is turned back into marshes.
  • Restoring San Francisco Bay

    Restoring San Francisco Bay

    Restoring San Francisco Bay Amy Hutzel Coastal Conservancy Photo credit: Rick Lewis 150 years of urbanization has altered San Francisco Bay (1850) (1998) We have had a massive impact on the Bay over the last century We’ve filled thousands of acres We’ve dumped garbage IMPORTANCE OF TIDAL MARSH • Growing threat: Climate Change Photo credit: Vivian Reed • Build up of sediment and vegetation takes time. • Higher starting elevation means marshes survive sea-level rise for longer. San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Mission: To raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority was created by Save The Bay and others through 2008 legislation. Its mandate is to propose new public funding mechanisms to voters for Bay marsh restoration; then provide grants to accelerate wetland restoration, flood protection, and public access to Bay. Governing Board comprised of elected officials from each quadrant of the Bay Area; Advisory Committee represents many community interests. It currently has no funding to carry out Photo credit: Vivian Reed its important mission. Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA June 2016 ballot measure to accelerate Bay wetlands restoration $12/parcel/year for 20 years, would generate ~$500 million for restoration projects around the Bay Strong majority of nine-county Bay Area voters are supportive; needs 2/3 support in all nine counties, cumulatively, to pass Examples of Projects Anticipated to be Eligible For Funding: • Eden Landing (Alameda) • Chelsea Wetlands (Contra Costa) • Bel Marin Keys (Marin) • Edgerly Island (Napa) • Yosemite Slough (San Francisco) • Ravenswood Ponds (San Mateo) • Alviso Ponds (Santa Clara) • Benicia Shoreline (Solano) • Skaggs Island (Sonoma) Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA Restoring vital fish, bird and wildlife habitat.
  • San Joaquin River Riparian Habitat Below Friant Dam: Preservation and Restoration1

    San Joaquin River Riparian Habitat Below Friant Dam: Preservation and Restoration1

    SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RIPARIAN HABITAT BELOW FRIANT DAM: PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION1 Donn Furman2 Abstract: Riparian habitat along California's San Joa- quin River in the 25 miles between Friant Darn and Free- Table 1 – Riparian wildlife/vegetation way 99 occurs on approximately 6 percent of its his- corridor toric range. It is threatened directly and indirectly by Corridor Corridor increased urban encroachment such as residential hous- Category Acres Percent ing, certain recreational uses, sand and gravel extraction, Water 1,088 14.0 aquiculture, and road construction. The San Joaquin Trees 588 7.0 River Committee was formed in 1985 to advocate preser- Shrubs 400 5.0 Other riparianl 1,844 23.0 vation and restoration of riparian habitat. The Com- Sensitive Biotic2 101 1.5 mittee works with local school districts to facilitate use Agriculture 148 2.0 of riverbottom riparian forest areas for outdoor envi- Recreation 309 4.0 ronmental education. We recently formed a land trust Sand and gravel 606 7.5 called the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Riparian buffer 2,846 36.0 Trust to preserve land through acquisition in fee and ne- Total 7,900 100.0 gotiation of conservation easements. Opportunities for 1 Land supporting riparian-type vegetation. In increasing riverbottom riparian habitat are presented by most cases this land has been mined for sand and gravel, and is comprised of lands from which sand and gravel have been extracted. gravel ponds. 2 Range of a Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species. Study Area The majority of the undisturbed riparian habitat lies between Friant Dam and Highway 41 beyond the city limits of Fresno.
  • Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease And

    Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease And

    May 16, 2019 TO: Enforcement Committee Members FROM: Larry Goldzband, Executive Director, (415/352-3653; [email protected]) Marc Zeppetello, Chief Counsel, (415/352-3655; [email protected]) Karen Donovan, Attorney III, (415/352-3628; [email protected]) SUBJECT: Executive Director’s Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CDO 2019.001.00 Salt River Construction Corporation and Richard Moseley (For Committee consideration on May 16, 2019) Executive Director’s Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the Enforcement Committee adopt this Recommended Enforcement Decision including the proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CCD2019.001.00 (“Order”) to Salt River Construction Corporation and Richard Moseley (“SRCC”), for the reasons stated below. This matter arises out of an enforcement action commenced by BCDC staff in June of 2018 after BCDC received information from witnesses regarding the unauthorized activities. The matter was previously presented to the Enforcement Committee on February 21, 2019. After the Committee voted to recommend the adoption of the proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order, the Commission remanded the matter to the Committee on April 18, 2019, in order to allow Mr. Moseley to appear and present his position. Staff Report I. SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS A. Background Facts The Complaint alleges three separate violations. The first alleged violation occurred on property near Schoonmaker Point Marina, located in Richardson’s Bay in Marin County. On November 25, 2017, a San Francisco Baykeeper patrol boat operator witnessed a barge near Schoonmaker Marina being propelled by an excavator bucket.
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    INTRODUCTION The purpose of this book is twofold: to provide general information for anyone interested in the California islands and to serve as a field guide for visitors to the islands. The book covers both general history and nat- ural history, from the geological origins of the islands through their aboriginal inhabitants and their marine and terrestrial biotas. Detailed coverage of the flora and fauna of one island alone would completely fill a book of this size; hence only the most common, most readily observed, and most interesting species are included. The names used for the plants and animals discussed in this book are the most up-to-date ones available, based on the scientific literature and the most recently published guidebooks. Common names are always subject to local variations, and they change constantly. Where two names are in common use, they are both mentioned the first time the organism is discussed. Ironically, in recent years scientific names have changed more recently than common names, and the reader concerned about a possible discrepancy in nomenclature should consult the scientific literature. If a significant nomenclatural change has escaped our notice, we apologize. For plants, our primary reference has been The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California, edited by James C. Hickman, including the latest lists of errata. Variation from the nomenclature in that volume is due to more recent interpretations, as explained in the text. Certain abbreviations used throughout the text may not be immedi- ately familiar to the general reader; they are as follows: sp., species (sin- gular); spp., species (plural); n.
  • Active Wetland Habitat Projects of the San

    Active Wetland Habitat Projects of the San

    ACTIVE WETLAND HABITAT PROJECTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE The SFBJV tracks and facilitates habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects throughout the nine Bay Area Projects listed Alphabetically by County counties. This map shows where a variety of active wetland habitat projects with identified funding needs are currently ALAMEDA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND. NEED MARIN COUNTY (continued) MAP ACRES FUND. NEED underway. For a more comprehensive list of all the projects we track, visit: www.sfbayjv.org/projects.php Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration 1 NA $12,000,000 McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration 33 180 $17,500,000 Alameda Point Restoration 2 660 TBD Novato Deer Island Tidal Wetlands Restoration 34 194 $7,000,000 Coyote Hills Regional Park - Restoration and Public Prey enhancement for sea ducks - a novel approach 3 306 $12,000,000 35 3.8 $300,000 Access Project to subtidal habitat restoration Hayward Shoreline Habitat Restoration 4 324 $5,000,000 Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 36 46 $8,200,000 Hoffman Marsh Restoration Project - McLaughlin 5 40 $2,500,000 Spinnaker Marsh Restoration 37 17 $3,000,000 Eastshore State Park Intertidal Habitat Improvement Project - McLaughlin 6 4 $1,000,000 Tennessee Valley Wetlands Restoration 38 5 $600,000 Eastshore State Park Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline - Water 7 200 $3,000,000 Tiscornia Marsh Restoration 39 16 $1,500,000 Quality Project Oakland Gateway Shoreline - Restoration and 8 200 $12,000,000 Tomales Dunes Wetlands 40 2 $0 Public Access Project Off-shore Bird Habitat Project - McLaughlin 9 1 $1,500,000 NAPA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND.
  • San Francisco Bay Plan

    San Francisco Bay Plan

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