DOCSLIB.ORG

Berryessa Recycling Facility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Berryessa Recycling Facility Oracle Design Tech Charter School Civil Improvements Biological Resources Report Project #3732-01 Prepared for: Shannon George David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates 9 October 2015 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Property Description ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Existing Land Use and Topography ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Proposed Site Development .................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Background Review ................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Site Visits ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Congdon’s Tarplant Survey ........................................................................................................................... 7 Section 3.0 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Federal ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Clean Water Act............................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Rivers and Harbors Act ................................................................................................................................ 10 3.1.3 Federal Endangered Species Act ................................................................................................................ 11 3.1.4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act .......................................................... 11 3.1.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................................................................ 12 3.1.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act ................................................................................................................. 12 3.2 State Regulations .................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act .............................................................................................. 13 3.2.2 California Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................................ 14 3.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act ....................................................................................................... 14 3.2.4 California Fish and Game Code ................................................................................................................. 16 3.2.5 The McAteer-Petris Act ............................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Local Regulations .................................................................................................................................................. 18 3.3.1 Redwood City Tree Ordinance ................................................................................................................... 18 Section 4.0 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................................... 19 4.1 General Project Area Description ...................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Soils .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Biotic Habitats and Associated Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 19 4.3.1 Developed ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 4.3.2 Landscaped ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 4.3.3 Ruderal ............................................................................................................................................................ 23 4.3.4 Peripheral Halophytes .................................................................................................................................. 25 4.4 Wildlife Movement ................................................................................................................................................ 26 4.4.1 Belmont Slough ............................................................................................................................................. 27 4.4.2 Pacific Flyway Stopover ............................................................................................................................... 27 4.5 Special-Status Plant and Animal Species............................................................................................................ 27 4.5.1 Special-status Plant Species .......................................................................................................................... 28 4.5.2 Special-status Animal Species ...................................................................................................................... 32 4.5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities, Habitats, and Vegetation Alliances ................................................... 52 4.5.4 Non-Native and Invasive Species ............................................................................................................... 53 Section 5.0 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 54 5.1 Impacts on Biological Resources Found to Be Less than Significant ........................................................... 55 5.1.1 Impacts on Upland Habitats and Communities ....................................................................................... 55 5.1.2 Impacts on the Alameda Song Sparrow .................................................................................................... 55 Oracle Design Tech Charter School Civil H. T. Harvey & Associates i Improvements Biological Resources Report 9 October 2015 5.1.3 Impacts on Habitat for and Individuals of Certain Nonbreeding Special-status Wildlife Species .. 57 5.1.4 Impacts on the Pacific Harbor Seal ............................................................................................................ 58 5.1.5 Impacts on Certain Common Wildlife Species ........................................................................................ 58 5.1.6 Impacts on Terrestrial Wildlife Movement ............................................................................................... 59 5.1.7 Conflicts with Approved Plans ................................................................................................................... 60 5.2 Impacts on Biological Resources Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation .............................. 60 5.2.1 Impacts on Potentially Regulated Wetlands and Water Quality ............................................................ 60 5.2.2 Impacts on the Central California Coast Steelhead, Green Sturgeon, Longfin Smelt, Chinook Salmon, and Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................................... 63 5.2.3 Impacts on the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Salt Marsh Wandering Shrew ................................... 64 5.2.4 Impacts on Nesting California Ridgway’s Rails ........................................................................................ 67 5.2.1 Impacts due to the Spread of Invasive Species ........................................................................................ 69 5.2.2 Impacts Due to Bird Strikes ........................................................................................................................ 69 5.2.3 Impacts on Protected
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Elkhorn Slough Estuary
    A RICH NATURAL RESOURCE YOU CAN HELP! Elkhorn Slough Estuary WATER QUALITY REPORT CARD Located on Monterey Bay, Elkhorn Slough and surround- There are several ways we can all help improve water 2015 ing wetlands comprise a network of estuarine habitats that quality in our communities: include salt and brackish marshes, mudflats, and tidal • Limit the use of fertilizers in your garden. channels. • Maintain septic systems to avoid leakages. • Dispose of pharmaceuticals properly, and prevent Estuarine wetlands harsh soaps and other contaminants from running are rare in California, into storm drains. and provide important • Buy produce from local farmers applying habitat for many spe- sustainable management practices. cies. Elkhorn Slough • Vote for the environment by supporting candidates provides special refuge and bills favoring clean water and habitat for a large number of restoration. sea otters, which rest, • Let your elected representatives and district forage and raise pups officials know you care about water quality in in the shallow waters, Elkhorn Slough and support efforts to reduce question: How is the water in Elkhorn Slough? and nap on the salt marshes. Migratory shorebirds by the polluted run-off and to restore wetlands. thousands stop here to rest and feed on tiny creatures in • Attend meetings of the Central Coast Regional answer: It could be a lot better… the mud. Leopard sharks by the hundreds come into the Water Quality Control Board to share your estuary to give birth. concerns and support for action. Elkhorn Slough estuary hosts diverse wetland habitats, wildlife and recreational activities. Such diversity depends Thousands of people come to Elkhorn Slough each year JOIN OUR EFFORT! to a great extent on the quality of the water.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Project Description March 5, 2003 Page 3-1
    Marina Shores Village Project Draft EIR City of Redwood City 3. Project Description March 5, 2003 Page 3-1 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the proposed action or "project" addressed by this EIR. The description is based on information provided to the City by the project applicant, Glenborough-Pauls LLC. As stipulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project description has been detailed to the extent needed for adequate review and evaluation of environmental impacts. In addition to describing key elements of the proposed project, this chapter is supplemented by project description details in individual environmental chapters 4 through 15. The description that follows includes (a) the project setting (location, boundaries, and local setting of the project site); (b) the project background (site history); (c) a statement of the basic project objectives sought by the applicant; (d) the project's physical and operational characteristics (i.e., land use components, densities, building types, architectural design, landscaping/open space, circulation and parking plans, marina and shoreline modifications, infrastructure provisions, project management, and other pertinent features); (e) the anticipated project construction schedule; and (f) the various anticipated permits and jurisdictional approvals required to allow construction of the project. 3.1 PROJECT SETTING 3.1.1 Regional Location As illustrated on Figure 3.1 (Regional Map), the proposed project site is located at the northern edge of the developed portion of Redwood City, on the San Francisco Bay side of U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway). U.S. 101 provides regional access to the approximately 46.45-acre project site; East Bayshore Road and Bair Island Road provide local access.
    [Show full text]
  • 140 Years of Railroading in Santa Cruz County by Rick Hamman
    140 Years of Railroading in Santa Cruz County By Rick Hamman Introduction To describe the last 140 years of area railroading in 4,000 words, or two articles, seems a reasonable task. After all, how much railroad history could there be in such a small county? In the summer of 1856 Davis & Jordon opened their horse powered railroad to haul lime from the Rancho Canada Del Rincon to their wharf in Santa Cruz. Today, the Santa Cruz, Big Trees & Pacific Railway continues to carry freight and passengers through those same Rancho lands to Santa Cruz. Between the time span of these two companies there has been no less than 37 different railroads operating at one time or another within Santa Cruz County. From these various lines has already come sufficient history to fill at least eight books and numerous historical articles. Many of these writings are available in your local library. As we begin this piece the author hopes to give the reader an overview and insight into what railroads have meant for Santa Cruz County, what they provide today, and what their relevance could be for tomorrow. Before There Were Railroads As people first moved west in search of gold, and later found reason to remain, Santa Cruz County offered many inducements. It was already well known because of its proximity to the former Alta California capital at Monterey, its Mission at Santa Cruz and its excellent weather. Further, within its boundaries were vast mineral deposits in the form of limestone and aggregates, rich alluvial farming soils and fertile orchard lands, and billions of standing board feet of uncut pine and redwood lumber to supply the construction of the San Francisco and Monterey bay areas.
    [Show full text]
  • BAYLANDS & CREEKS South San Francisco
    Oak_Mus_Baylands_SideA_6_7_05.pdf 6/14/2005 11:52:36 AM M12 M10 M27 M10A 121°00'00" M28 R1 For adjoining area see Creek & Watershed Map of Fremont & Vicinity 37°30' 37°30' 1 1- Dumbarton Pt. M11 - R1 M26 N Fremont e A in rr reek L ( o te C L y alien a o C L g a Agua Fria Creek in u d gu e n e A Green Point M a o N l w - a R2 ry 1 C L r e a M8 e g k u ) M7 n SF2 a R3 e F L Lin in D e M6 e in E L Creek A22 Toroges Slou M1 gh C ine Ravenswood L Slough M5 Open Space e ra Preserve lb A Cooley Landing L i A23 Coyote Creek Lagoon n M3 e M2 C M4 e B Palo Alto Lin d Baylands Nature Mu Preserve S East Palo Alto loug A21 h Calaveras Point A19 e B Station A20 Lin C see For adjoining area oy Island ote Sand Point e A Lucy Evans Lin Baylands Nature Creek Interpretive Center Newby Island A9 San Knapp F Map of Milpitas & North San Jose Creek & Watershed ra Hooks Island n Tract c A i l s Palo Alto v A17 q i ui s to Creek Baylands Nature A6 o A14 A15 Preserve h g G u u a o Milpitas l Long Point d a S A10 A18 l u d p Creek l A3N e e i f Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity Creek & Watershed Calera y A16 Berryessa a M M n A1 A13 a i h A11 l San Jose / Santa Clara s g la a u o Don Edwards San Francisco Bay rd Water Pollution Control Plant B l h S g Creek d u National Wildlife Refuge o ew lo lo Vi F S Environmental Education Center .
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
    Water Hyacinth Control Program FINAL Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 November 30, 2009 A program for effective control of Water Hyacinth in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries. Copies of this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report in hard copy form, or on computer compact disc (CD), can be obtained from the California Department of Boating and Waterways. To request a report copy, please contact: Ms. Terri Ely Aquatic Weed Program California Department of Boating and Waterways 2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95815 (916) 263-8138 [email protected] Cover photo: March 14, 2008, by NewPoint Group, Inc., of the Wheeler Island Duck Club, at Honker Bay. [PARTIAL] Water Hyacinth Control Program Water Hyacinth Control Program A program for effective control of Water Hyacinth in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries. FINAL Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 November 30, 2009 Prepared by: The California Department of Boating and Waterways With Technical Assistance from: NewPoint Group, Inc. 2555 Third Street, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95818 (916) 442-0508 www.newpointgroup.com ~----Pei:at f~m.A; _ _,__,..._... AniJru--~- ' --sepat Table of Contents Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 Page Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................... AA-1 Executive Summary.......................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • March 23, 2020 Gene Broussard AMG & Associates, LLC 16633 Ventura
    March 23, 2020 Gene Broussard AMG & Associates, LLC 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 10104 Encino, CA 91436 RE: Biological Site Assessment for 825 Drake Avenue Mr. Broussard, The purpose of this letter report is to provide you the results of the Biological Site Assessment (BSA) that WRA, Inc. (WRA) conducted at 825 Drake Avenue (APN: 052-112-03) in Sausalito, unincorporated Marin County, California (Study Area; Attachment A-Figure 1). The BSA site visit was conducted on December 27, 2019. The Study Area is composed of a single 1.01-acre improved parcel located at 825 Drake Avenue, approximately 0.2 air mile west of US Highway 101. The Study Area consists of developed areas including a paved parking lot, paved walkways, a semi-permanent church structure, a storage shed, and surrounding landscaped areas. Planted native and non-native landscape trees border the majority of the Study Area. The proposed development footprint based on the most recent Project plans (Kodama Diseno Architects and Planners, February 20, 2020), is located within the central portion of the Study Area and is referred to as the Project Area. Existing access to the Study Area is via a paved driveway in the southern portion of the Study Area adjacent to Drake Avenue. The purpose of this assessment is to gather information necessary to complete a review of biological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report describes the results of the site visit for which the Study Area was assessed concerning: (1) the potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species; (2) the potential presence of sensitive biological communities such as wetlands or riparian habitats subject to regulatory agency jurisdiction; and (3) the potential presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge 2020
    Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020 -2021 Waterfowl Hunting Regulations These Regulations along with maps and directions are available at: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Don_Edwards_San_Francisco_Bay/hunting.html General Information The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) contains approximately 10,580 acres of tidal areas and salt ponds that are open to waterfowl hunting (Map 1). Season opening and closing dates are determined by the State of California. Check the California Waterfowl Regulations (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting) each season for these dates. Hunters must comply with all State and Federal regulations including regulations listed under 50 CFR 32.24, and the refuge-specific regulations described below. Permit Requirements Hunters 18 years of age or older will need to have: 1) a valid California hunting license; 2) a valid, signed Federal Duck Stamp; 3) a California Duck Validation; 4) a Harvest Information Program (HIP) Validation; and 5) identification that includes a photograph (e.g., driver’s license). Junior and Youth hunters need the following: Junior/Youth Hunter Summary 15 yrs old or 16-17 yrs old w/ Jr 18 yrs old w/ Jr under (Youth) license (Junior) license (Junior) Participate in post-season youth hunt? Yes Yes No Needs a California hunting license? Yes Yes Yes Needs a HIP Validation? Yes Yes Yes Needs a Federal Duck Stamp? No Yes Yes Needs a State Duck Stamp (validation)? No No No Needs an adult accompanying them on regular hunt days? Yes No No Needs an adult accompanying them for youth hunt days? Yes Yes Yes It is required that all hunters possess a Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Permit when hunting in the Alviso Ponds.
    [Show full text]
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf
    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
    [Show full text]
  • First Records of the Night Smelt, Spirinchus Starksi, in the Salish Sea
    First Records of the Night Smelt, Spirinchus starksi, in the Salish Sea, Washington Author(s): Melanie M Paquin , Anna N Kagley , Kurt L Fresh , and James W Orr Source: Northwestern Naturalist, 95(1):40-43. 2014. Published By: Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1898/NWN13-05.1 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1898/NWN13-05.1 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/ page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non- commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. 40 NORTHWESTERN NATURALIST 95(1) NORTHWESTERN NATURALIST 95:40–43 SPRING 2014 FIRST RECORDS OF THE NIGHT SMELT, SPIRINCHUS STARKSI, IN THE SALISH SEA, WASHINGTON MELANIE MPAQUIN,ANNA NKAGLEY,KURT LFRESH, AND JAMES WORR Key words: COI, distribution, genetics, (frozen or preserved in ethanol) from 11 S. starksi Longfin Smelt, Night Smelt, Osmeridae, Spir- and 5 S. thaleichthys were obtained from the inchus starksi, Spirinchus thaleichthys, Washing- Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) ton and the University of Washington Fish Collec- tion (UW).
    [Show full text]
  • CLASSIFICATION of CALIFORNIA ESTUARIES BASED on NATURAL CLOSURE PATTERNS: TEMPLATES for RESTORATION and MANAGEMENT Revised
    CLASSIFICATION OF CALIFORNIA ESTUARIES BASED ON NATURAL CLOSURE PATTERNS: TEMPLATES FOR RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT Revised David K. Jacobs Eric D. Stein Travis Longcore Technical Report 619.a - August 2011 Classification of California Estuaries Based on Natural Closure Patterns: Templates for Restoration and Management David K. Jacobs1, Eric D. Stein2, and Travis Longcore3 1UCLA Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 2Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 3University of Southern California - Spatial Sciences Institute August 2010 Revised August 2011 Technical Report 619.a ABSTRACT Determining the appropriate design template is critical to coastal wetland restoration. In seasonally wet and semi-arid regions of the world coastal wetlands tend to close off from the sea seasonally or episodically, and decisions regarding estuarine mouth closure have far reaching implications for cost, management, and ultimate success of coastal wetland restoration. In the past restoration planners relied on an incomplete understanding of the factors that influence estuarine mouth closure. Consequently, templates from other climatic/physiographic regions are often inappropriately applied. The first step to addressing this issue is to develop a classification system based on an understanding of the processes that formed the estuaries and thus define their pre-development structure. Here we propose a new classification system for California estuaries based on the geomorphic history and the dominant physical processes that govern the formation of the estuary space or volume. It is distinct from previous estuary closure models, which focused primarily on the relationship between estuary size and tidal prism in constraining closure. This classification system uses geologic origin, exposure to littoral process, watershed size and runoff characteristics as the basis of a conceptual model that predicts likely frequency and duration of closure of the estuary mouth.
    [Show full text]