DOCSLIB.ORG

Promising Results from an Experimental Wedge of Grass, Mud, and Wastewater

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Promising Results from an Experimental Wedge of Grass, Mud, and Wastewater ESTUARY 1 SCIENCE • RESTORATION • WATERSHED • POLITICS SPECIES BAY • WATERSHED SCIENCE • RESTORATION San Francisco Estuary Partnership Promising Results from an Experimental Wedge of Grass, Mud, and Wastewater Whether It’s Wet or Dry this Winter Planners Still Prep for Floods Shells as Camouflage for Nests? Voracious Snails and Weevils in the Delta: Good and Bad Biology Quelling Erosion Worries about Rain on the Burn Intermittent Diablo Range Creek Rich in Biodiversity Public Sediment Favors Mud NE WS DECEMBER 2017 VOL. 26, NO. 4 Bair Island . 2 Oro Loma . .. 3 One Water . 5 Post Fire Water Quality . 7 Profile Hopper . 8 Plover Predators . 12 Coyote Creek . 13 RMP PFASs . 15 Salmon Curtains . 16 Designing with Mud . 18 2 DECEMBER 2017 ESTUARY NEWS RESTORATION space constraints, restorationists are making their best efforts to mimic transition zones with good site plan- ning and careful earthwork. Minding the Margins But it’s not all about soils and salin- David Thomson, the Habitats transition zones were broad and ity. The plants covering the newly built Program director for the San Fran- gradually sloping. Nearly all of these transition zones are also crucial to their cisco Bay Bird Observatory, studies historic zones have been developed, overall health and function. Without transition zones between marsh and filled, put behind a levee, or otherwise the right combinations of cover, it just upland. The habitat is crucial for a impacted. “If you want to see a less becomes weed-filled slope and can’t properly functioning estuary, mainly impacted landscape you have to go to provide the ecological benefits for tidal because of the coverage and forage it Suisun Bay,” Thomson says. “A couple marsh animal communities. Over the can provide endangered and sensi- of researchers from UC Davis call past several years, Thomson’s SFBBO tive species looking to escape high those sites unicorns.” Habitats Program and a number of tide events. Intact transition zones partnering agencies have worked to Another reason that studying figure out how to best bring transition also help future-proofArbitrary Target = the 50% estuary by marsh-upland transition zones is tricky zones back to life. “We have seeded over giving marsh plant and animal com- is because they have also been poorly 30 species of local native plants, and munities the opportunity to migrate defined, both in terms of vocabulary enhanced them with up to 10 species of landward as the sea level rises. and by maps and modeling (see new natives grown in containers for out- But really understanding how the report link below). Often characterized planting, because not everything does marsh to upland transition zones by biologists or ecologists by chang- well from seed,” Thomson says about function in San Francisco Bay is chal- ing plant communities, marsh-upland the Bair Island and Pond A17 sites. lenging. Historically, marsh-upland transition zones are actually physical structures that, according Meanwhile, planning documents to Thomson, should be about marsh-upland transition zones MIGRATION SPACE - % OF TOTAL defined in relation to high are catching up with what ecologists 100% tide events. Based on tides have been documenting for decades: % Area Undeveloped for 2 ft SLR Marsh-bound communities need high % Area Undeveloped & Protected for 2 ft SLR and topography, marsh- 80 % Area Undeveloped for 5 ft SLR upland transition zones ground in times of flood tides. The % Area Undeveloped & Protected for 5 ft SLR will have a different look 2013 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Re- 60 and feel in different parts covery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystem of the Bay. of Northern and Central California, 40 which provides guidance for marsh Today, Thomson and restoration, says that the marsh-up- his colleagues are apply- 20 land transition habitat is a critical eco- ing what they have learned system component and just as impor- by recreating physical 0 tant as the marshes themselves. “The South Central North Suisun North Central South transition zones at places language changed from should restore Bay Bay Bay Bay Delta Delta Delta like Bair Island and Pond transition zones,” Thomson says, “to A17, which is part of the must restore transition zones.” DM For the State of the Estuary Report 2015, scientists devel- South Bay Salt Pond oped an indicator of the “health” of the Bay Area’s supply of Restoration Project. While CONTACT migration space from tidal areas into uplands. The indicator David Thomson, [email protected] assesses the current percent of undeveloped space in the the long, gently sloping area of transition zones and the percentage of that space transitional habitats are New Mapping Methodology for that is protected from development. no longer feasible at the Transition Zones Bay’s edge because of www.sfestuary.org/vision WEATHERREPORT So what’s in store for the Bay Area winter precipitation. However, there this winter? Dr. Michael Dettinger, a is one big caveat: the really big rain research hydrologist with the United event events in our historical records Wet? Dry? States Geological Survey, cautions occurred during the same weak La Whatever against drawing conclusions based on Niña conditions that we saw last year the past winter’s storms. “Last year and that are currently brewing in the From the Oroville dam to Highway was so unusual that it would be com- tropics. 37 to San Jose neighborhoods along pletely unexpected to get another like “I’m duty bound to point out that Coyote Creek, last winter’s unusual it this year,” says Dettinger. “It would rainfall unearthed northern Califor- the four largest floods over most cen- be like pulling an ace of spades twice nia’s many flood vulnerabilities. It tral Sierra Nevada rivers have histori- in a row out of multiple card decks was a costly lesson for the Bay Area: cally happened when we were in weak shuffled together.” in San Jose alone flooding forced the La Niña status,” says Dettinger. “So evacuation of 14,000 people – many of According to Dettinger’s research, despite the low odds we can’t take the possibility of another strong winter whom after nine months are still try- past river levels in the Sierra Nevada completely off the table.” ing to recover – and caused over $100 show that last year’s weak La Niña million in damages. conditions most often result in normal continued page 4 3 CLIMATE themselves out and found their place on the slope,” says Save the Bay’s restoration manager Donna Ball. Some of the magic had to do with Nudging Natural Magic the intensity of the timeline too. The “Miraculous” isn’t a term that a very sophisticated watering system entire project had to be constructed comes easily to the lips of scientists that allows us to test all kinds of differ- within 15 months because of grant deadlines (the project was largely and engineers. But the word, along ent discharge rates,” says ESA As- funded by the Oro Loma and Castro with a quickly quelled gulp of incre- sociate’s Mark Lindley, lead engineer Valley Sanitary Districts and a Bay dulity, cropped up more than once in for the project. “We can cycle between Area Proposition 84 Integrated Re- interviews concerning the preliminary dry and wet days, and saturated and gional Water Management Grant from results of the horizontal levee ex- drained soils, mimicking the natural the California Department of Water periment on the San Lorenzo shore conditions these plants might experi- Resources administered by the San — including off the charts levels of ence in the transitional zone at the Francisco Estuary Partnership). removal of nitrogen and pharmaceuti- edge of Bay marshes.” cals from wastewater passed through Another magic ingredient is the The accelerated timeline prompted the system and growth of willows, diversity of species planted, with a some innovative thinking by project cattails, and wet meadows. particular emphasis on perennials partners. Lindley developed a way that regenerate every year vegeta- to speed up levee building on loose This pilot sea level rise adaptation bay mud — which has a tendency tively via buds. Botanist and coastal project, led by the Oro Loma Sanitary to compress, settle, buckle, bubble, ecologist Peter Baye chose each spe- District, combines precision engi- “heave,” and flow back into any cies in the mix to replicate the great neering, native plants, irrigation via excavation area—by moving heavier range of conditions in a transitional treated household wastewater, and a material around as a compression zone where fresh water from local hump of bay mud, sand, and gravel. weight to “surcharge the subsurface.” watersheds and aquifers would natu- The idea is to test which ingredients Jason Warner, general manager of the rally seep into the back of our salt –liquid, solid, vegetable — in what sanitary district, shepherded multiple marshes — if we hadn’t built so many doses and combinations make the partners through design, permit- levees, walls, and communities right levee bulk up and leaf out fastest, and ting, construction and funding chal- up to their edge. best “polish” (clean) the wastewater. lenges with “phenomenal vision and As the Bay Area confronts a rise in sea level projected to accelerate rap- idly as early as 2040, those charged with protecting drowning shorelines are exploring new options for how to help increase their elevation in rela- tion to the advancing tides naturally. This closely-watched experiment goes beyond sea walls and sediment lifts to harness the productive power of plants, which as they go through cycles of growth and decay lay down new layers of organic matter over soils — adding much-needed inches to shoreline elevations. “I’ve been drinking the restoration Kool-aid long enough to have seen lots of failures, surprises, and unplanned Participants in Resilient by Design challenge stand at the top of horizontal levee looking over outcomes,” says Save the Bay’s Jessie an associated wet weather basin, with the jungle of growth on the new levee behind them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 11. Soils and Geology March 5, 2003 Page 11-1
    Marina Shores Village Project Draft EIR City of Redwood City 11. Soils and Geology March 5, 2003 Page 11-1 11. SOILS AND GEOLOGY This EIR chapter describes existing geologic and soil conditions at the project site and immediate vicinity, identifies associated potential geotechnical impacts related to development of the proposed project, and sets forth measures designed to mitigate identified significant adverse impacts. Data sources used to complete these descriptions include a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the Marina Shores Village project site performed for the applicant by Treadwell & Rollo, Environmental and Geotechnical Consultants, dated June 21, 2001; the assessment of project hydrologic implications completed for this EIR by Clearwater Hydrology (see chapter 9); a wetlands investigation and a biological assessment performed for the applicant by the Huffman-Broadway Group, both dated February 2002; published reference materials produced by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); environmental documents prepared for previous development projects on the site (e.g., the Peninsula Marina and Office Park) and in the immediate vicinity (e.g., the "Villas at Bair Island" and the Bair Island Marina); and the Redwood City Strategic General Plan. The Treadwell & Rollo preliminary geotechnical investigation, much of which is presented in this EIR chapter, describes the limitations and preliminary nature of its conclusions by stating, "The conclusions presented in this report are preliminary and intended to address general geotechnical conditions of the site. The report has not been prepared to meet the need of design professionals, contractors, or any other parties in preparation of final design or construction documents.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in Abundance and Distribution of Nesting Double-Crested Cormorants Phalacrocorax Auritus in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1975–2017
    Rauzon et al.: Changes in nesting Double-Crested Cormorants in San Francisco Bay area 127 CHANGES IN ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NESTING DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS PHALACROCORAX AURITUS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 1975–2017 MARK J. RAUZON1*, MEREDITH L. ELLIOTT2, PHILLIP J. CAPITOLO3, L. MAX TARJAN4, GERARD J. McCHESNEY5, JOHN P. KELLY6 & HARRY R. CARTER7† 1Laney College, Geography Department, 900 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94607, USA *([email protected]) 2Point Blue Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Drive, #11, Petaluma, CA 94954, USA 3Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, 115 McAllister Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 4San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, 524 Valley Way, Milpitas, CA 95035, USA 5US Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1 Marshlands Road, Fremont, CA 94555, USA 6Audubon Canyon Ranch, Cypress Grove Research Center, P.O. Box 808, Marshall, CA 94940, USA 7Humboldt State University, Department of Wildlife, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521, USA †Deceased Received 19 October 2018, accepted 13 February 2019 ABSTRACT RAUZON, M.J., ELLIOTT, M.L., CAPITOLO, P.J., TARJAN, L.M., McCHESNEY, G.J., KELLY, J.P. & CARTER, H.R. 2019. Changes in abundance and distribution of nesting Double-crested Cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus in the San Francisco Bay area, 1975–2017. Marine Ornithology 47: 127–138. In the San Francisco Bay area, California, the Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus population has recovered from significant declines to reach breeding population sizes comparable to those from the late 19th century, when only one colony offshore at the South Farallon Islands (SFI) was known.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Club Members Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf4j49n7st No online items Guide to the Sierra Club Members Papers Processed by Lauren Lassleben, Project Archivist Xiuzhi Zhou, Project Assistant; machine-readable finding aid created by Brooke Dykman Dockter The Bancroft Library. University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu © 1997 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Note History --History, CaliforniaGeographical (By Place) --CaliforniaSocial Sciences --Urban Planning and EnvironmentBiological and Medical Sciences --Agriculture --ForestryBiological and Medical Sciences --Agriculture --Wildlife ManagementSocial Sciences --Sports and Recreation Guide to the Sierra Club Members BANC MSS 71/295 c 1 Papers Guide to the Sierra Club Members Papers Collection number: BANC MSS 71/295 c The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California Contact Information: The Bancroft Library. University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu Processed by: Lauren Lassleben, Project Archivist Xiuzhi Zhou, Project Assistant Date Completed: 1992 Encoded by: Brooke Dykman Dockter © 1997 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Sierra Club Members Papers Collection Number: BANC MSS 71/295 c Creator: Sierra Club Extent: Number of containers: 279 cartons, 4 boxes, 3 oversize folders, 8 volumesLinear feet: ca. 354 Repository: The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California 94720-6000 Physical Location: For current information on the location of these materials, please consult the Library's online catalog.
    [Show full text]
  • California Department of Fish and Wildlife Ecological Reserves
    California Department of Fish and Wildlife Northern Region (1) Bay Delta Region (3) Key Property Name Key Property Name Ecological Reserves 1 BUTLER SLOUGH ER 28 ALBANY MUDFLATS ER 2 CHINA POINT ER 29 ATASCADERO CREEK MARSH ER 3 CLOVER CREEK ER 30 BAIR ISLAND ER 4 DALES LAKE ER 31 BONNY DOON ER 5 FALL RIVER MILLS ER 32 CALHOUN CUT ER ! DEL 2 6 HEADWATERS FOREST ER 33 CANADA DE LOS OSOS ER NORTE 7 LITTLE BUTTE ER 34 CORRAL HOLLOW ER Klamath NF Modoc NF Klamath NF 8 LITTLE RED MOUNTAIN ER 35 CORTE MADERA MARSH ER SISKIYOU MODOC 9 MATTOLE RIVER ER 36 EDEN LANDING ER Modoc NF 10 OWL CREEK ER 37 FAGAN MARSH ER 11 TABLE BLUFF ER 38 HARRISON GRADE ER Six Rivers NF 12 THOMES CREEK ER 39 LIBERTY ISLAND ER Shasta NF 13 YORKVILLE ER 40 MARIN ISLANDS ER 5 ! 41 NAPA RIVER ER Trinity NF 42 PEYTONIA SLOUGH ER LASSEN North Central Region (2) 43 QUAIL HOLLOW ER ! 1 SHASTA ! 6 44 QUAIL RIDGE ER TRINITY Lassen NF Key Property Name 11 ! 45 REDWOOD SHORES ER 14 APRICUM HILL ER 46 10 ! SAN ANTONIO VALLEY ER 3 15 BOBELAINE ER 47 HUMBOLDT SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN ER ! 4 16 BOGGS LAKE ER 48 SANTA CRUZ LONG-TOED SALAMANDER ER 17 BUTTE CREEK CANYON ER 49 SANTA ROSA PLAIN VERNAL POOL ER ! 18 BUTTE CREEK HOUSE ER 50 THEILLER SEBASTOPOL MEADOWFOAM ER 7 TEHAMA 1 ! ! 18 19 COSUMNES RIVER ER 51 TOMALES BAY ER ! ! PLUMAS 9 ! 12 20 LEEK SPRINGS ER 52 WATSONVILLE SLOUGH ER 26 21 LOCH LOMOND VERNAL POOL ER 8 ! Plumas NF 53 WOODBRIDGE ER !17 22 MACKLIN CREEK ER BUTTE 23 NORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ER GLENN ! Central Region (4) Mendocino 23 SIERRA 24 PHOENIX FIELD ER ! MENDOCINO NF 22
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in Breeding Population Size of Brandt's and Double-Crested
    Changes in Breeding Population Size of Brandt’s and Double-crested Cormorants in California, 1975-2003 Phillip J. Capitolo1, Harry R. Carter1,4, Richard J. Young1, Gerard J. McChesney2, William R. McIver1,5, Richard T. Golightly1, and Franklin Gress3 1Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521 USA 2San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 524, Newark, California 94560 USA 3California Institute of Environmental Studies, 3408 Whaler Avenue, Davis, California 95616 USA Final Report for Contract # 10154-2-G106 between Humboldt State University Foundation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service July 2004 4Current Address: 5700 Arcadia Road, Apt. #219, Richmond, British Columbia V6X2G9 Canada 5Current Address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 USA Suggested Citation: Capitolo, P. J., H. R. Carter, R. J. Young, G. J. McChesney, W. R. McIver, R. T. Golightly, and F. Gress. 2004. Changes in breeding population size of Brandt’s and Double- crested Cormorants in California, 1975-2003. Unpublished report, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Berryessa Recycling Facility
    Oracle Design Tech Charter School Civil Improvements Biological Resources Report Project #3732-01 Prepared for: Shannon George David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates 9 October 2015 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Property Description ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Existing Land Use and Topography ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Proposed Site Development .................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Background Review ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ongoing and Potential Wetland Habitat Projects Ongoing And
    6 OngoingOngoing andand PotentialPotential WetlandWetland HabitatHabitat ProjectsProjects JOHN STEERE he San Francisco Bay Joint Venture partners Ongoing and Pending T have been undertaking a wide array of wetland Habitat Projects projects throughout the region. The following listing of their habitat projects comprises 43,000 acres of ongoing and potential initiatives. It demonstrates The projects below are well distributed among both the great level of activity and the promise for acquisition, enhancement, or restoration. They can wetland and riparian restoration and enhancement be regarded as in process or partially completed, but throughout the geographic scope of the Joint generally in need of additional funding for comple- Venture. To underscore the reality and the potential tion. Together, these habitat projects constitute of the SFBJV’s efforts, this listing is divided between roughly 31,400 acres. “Ongoing and Pending Habitat Projects” and “Potential Projects for 2001 and Beyond.” These cat- egories serve to distinguish near-term initiatives North Bay Subregion (N) from long-term opportunities. The projects listed below are keyed to Figure N2. Triangle Marsh, Marin County. The 31-acre 6-1, “San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Habitat Triangle Marsh property, near Corte Madera, is a Projects: 2000.” These are partnership-based and remnant tidal area (with a tidal panne) along the are grouped by subregion, beginning with the North Marin Baylands. Marin Audubon initiated the proj- Bay, moving clockwise around the Bay. The project ect and it was recently purchased with grants from codes refer to these subregions, where “N” means the Coastal Conservancy and Marin Open Space North Bay, “CB” equals Central Bay, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Highway 101 Pedestrian Undercrossing and Bair Island Road Storm Drain Pump Station Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Volume I
    U.S. HIGHWAY 101 PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSING AND BAIR ISLAND ROAD STORM DRAIN PUMP STATION PROJECT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION VOLUME I AUGUST 21, 2013 Prepared for: Prepared by: City of Redwood City Point Impact Analysis and WRECO, Inc U.S. HIGHWAY 101 PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSING AND BAIR ISLAND ROAD STORM DRAIN PUMP STATION PROJECT This Initial Study and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) assess the potential environmental impacts of the U.S. Highway 101 Pedestrian Undercrossing and Bair Island Road Storm Drain Pump Station Project (US 101 Pedestrian Undercrossing and Bair Island Storm Drain Pump Station Project) for use in local planning and decision making. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Redwood City (City) decided to prepare a MND for the proposed project because the Initial Study found that, with the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures, all potential impacts related to the project would be less than significant. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: U.S. Highway 101 Pedestrian Undercrossing and Bair Island Road Storm Drain Pump Station Project Lead Agency: City of Redwood City Community Development Department 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94064 Contact Person: Tanisha Werner, Project Engineer (650) 780-7366 [email protected] Project Applicant: City of Redwood City Project Location: Between Bair Island Road and Convention Way, Redwood City, CA Existing General Plan Designation: Mixed Use-Corridor, Mixed Use-Waterfront Neighborhood Existing Zoning: Planned Community District (P) Description of Project: The City of Redwood City proposes to construct a joint-use path under the U.S. Highway 101 bridge at Redwood Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMER 2006 ■ 3 COASTAL OUTINGS Rancho Corral De Tierra
    fromfrom POST! POST! S ▲ A TO SAN FRANCISCO N F Montara R San Mateo Foster A N POST-protected properties City C I S 280 101 C Belmont O Other protected lands 1 B 84 880 7 AY San Carlos Newark 2 East El Granada 92 Palo Alto 1 Redwood City Half Moon Menlo Park Bay 9 84 3 Woodside Atherton Palo Alto Alviso 35 82 Mountain View 237 Milpitas 4 280 85 Portola Valley Los Altos Sunnyvale 101 Santa Clara 8 Los Altos Hills 8 82 San Jose N San Gregorio A E 280 C La Honda Cupertino 84 O Campbell 87 C I F 1 35 I Saratoga 101 C 85 A P Los Gatos 9 Pescadero 17 9 5 6 10 11 0 5 10 miles TO SANTA CRUZ 17 1 ▼ SUMMER OUTINGS FROM POST Summer’s here and it’s the perfect COASTAL OUTINGS SKYLINE AND BAYFRONT time to experience the natural 1 Rancho Corral de Tierra EXCURSIONS lands POST has protected for your enjoyment. This issue of Landscapes 2 Pillar Point Bluff 7 Bair Island highlights both currently owned 3 Johnston Ranch 8 Windy Hill and already transferred properties 4 Cowell Ranch Beach 9 Phleger Estate that are open and accessible to the 5 Mel’s Lane public. To learn where to go and SOUTH BAY ADVENTURES what to do, turn to pages 4–11. 6 Wilbur’s Watch Enjoy! 10 Bear Creek Redwoods 11 Rancho Cañada del Oro 2 ■ LANDSCAPES A Note from Audrey One of my favorite outdoor experiences happened a few years ago at Cowell Ranch Beach, a POST-protected property just south of Half Moon Bay.
    [Show full text]