DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Scoping Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Scoping Report CORRIDOR PROJECT Environmental Scoping Report March 2007 Federal Transit Administration & Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board PREPARED BY: Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. in cooperation with Parsons Transportation Group Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Environmental Scoping Report Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................4 2. PURPOSE AND NOTIFICATION OF SCOPING.................................5 NEPA/CEQA Notices................................................................................................................5 Press Releases and Newspaper Notices.....................................................................................5 Direct Mail Notification...............................................................................................................6 Transit Rider Outreach.................................................................................................................6 Internet Outreach..........................................................................................................................6 3. SCOPING MEETINGS ..........................................................7 Meeting Format and Content......................................................................................................7 Summary of Meeting Comments (Verbal and Written) ..........................................................8 Newark Public Scoping Meeting November 15, 2006 8 Menlo Park Public Scoping Meeting, November 16, 2006 9 Fremont Public Information Meeting, November 29, 2006 10 Agency Scoping Meeting, Menlo Park, November 16, 2006 10 4. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE............................... 12 Letters and E-mails .....................................................................................................................12 Letters from Resource Agencies, Responsible Agencies, and Jurisdictional Entities .......12 Federal Agencies 12 State Agencies 15 Regional and Local Agencies 16 Appendix A MEDIA ADVISORIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS DIRECT M AILER DISPLAY BOARDS EXHIBITED AT PUBLIC SCOPING AND INFORMATION MEETINGS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ON DUMBARTION R AIL CORRIDOR PROJECT SCOPING MEETING HANDOUTS WALLGRAPHIC IMAGES FROM PUBLIC M EETINGS AGENCY SCOPING MEETING N OTES, MENLO PARK, NOVEMBER 16, 2006 DUMBARTON RAIL POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE A GENDA Appendix B COMMENT FORMS Newark Public Scoping Meeting Menlo Park Public Scoping Meeting Fremont Public Information Meeting E XECUTIVE S UMMARY Overview of Scoping Process The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and the Federal Transit Administration, in coordination with local agencies, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC) Project. The project will extend rail service for approximately 21 miles between Redwood City and Union City by reconstructing an existing rail bridge next to the Dumbarton Bridge (State Route 84) and using existing rail right-of-way leading to and from the reconstructed bridge. The corridor is owned by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) from Redwood Junction to Newark Junction and by the Union Pacific Railroad east of Newark Junction. The purpose of the project is to link the East Bay and the West Bay by extending rail service across southern San Francisco Bay. The extension will connect existing public transportation services, such as BART, Altamont Commuter Express, Capitol Corridor, Caltrain, and regional bus service. A Scoping process was conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register, and elected officials and various agencies were contacted by mail to notify them of the intention to prepare the environmental document and of the Scoping process. Eight federal agencies were invited to be cooperating agencies in preparing the environmental document. Notices of Preparation were distributed to State agencies through the Clearinghouse. Two public scoping meetings were held on the following dates and at the following times and locations: Wednesday Nov. 15, 2006 Thursday Nov. 16, 2006 6:30 pm-8:30 pm 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm Newark Community Center City of Menlo Park Senior Center 35501 Cedar Blvd. 110 Terminal Ave. Newark, CA 94560 Menlo Park, CA 94025 An agency scoping meeting was held from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm on Thursday Nov. 16, 2006 at the City of Menlo Park Senior Center. The City of Fremont hosted a public information meeting about the project and the initiation of the environmental process from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm on Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006, at the Niles Elementary School. Caltrain staff were invited to present the project and receive community input at this meeting. At the request of participants, the Scoping comment period deadline was extended to facilitate receipt of comments generated by the Fremont meeting. Public outreach for the Scoping process included newspaper advertisements, information flyers to transit riders, direct mail notification, a project web page and press releases. Announcements were also made at the October 17, 2006 DRC Project Development Team meeting and at the November 14, 2006 DRC Project Policy Advisory Committee meeting. Copies of noticing materials are included in Appendix A. The purpose of the meetings was to present the proposed project and its components, describe the project alternatives under consideration, identify the environmental technical studies to be prepared, and obtain public comments on the alternatives and potential environmental impacts to be evaluated in the environmental document. All of the meetings began with an open house during which participants visited information stations on project-related topics such as the project purpose and need and alternatives under consideration. Project staff were available to answer questions and provide information during the open house. Following the open house was a formal presentation about the proposed project, the environmental review, and the schedule. The meeting concluded with a formal public comment period. The agency scoping meeting was more informal, enabling questions and discussions throughout the open house and presentation. Participants at all meetings were encouraged to submit comments in writing as well as orally. Comment forms were distributed and contact information provided. Overview of Comments Received A summary of the major comments received during the public comment periods, on comment forms submitted during the meetings, and in writing by mail or email follows. Caltrain retains a complete file of every comment, submitted by whatever means. Other Alternatives Suggested – Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), re-route or extend ACE trains, extend BART, extend Dumbarton Express Service Modifications to Proposed Alternatives – Use electrified trains, make service bi- directional, add off-peak service, add a stop at Marsh Road, construct grade separations at major street crossings Noise & Vibration – impacts of DRC service, impacts of freight service Safety – impacts of DRC service, at grade crossings, impacts of freight service Other Potential Impacts of Freight Service – potential for accidents, hazardous wastes transport Traffic – potential for cross traffic delays at grade crossings, impacts on local circulation with traffic access to/egress from stations Wildlife and Wetlands – particularly impacts to Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Cost and Funding – including high project costs, costs and benefits of project, sufficient funding for mitigation measures Impact on Local Property Values – from DRC and/or freight service Elimination of Dumbarton Express Bus Service Environmental Justice Construction Phase Impacts Overview of This Report This report documents the Scoping process and reports on the timing, location, noticing, and content of the Scoping and public information meetings. It summarizes the major comments received during each meeting as well as the comments received after the meetings. Comments from agencies in response to the NOI and/or NOP are also summarized. Appendix A of this report provide copies of the media advisories and announcements, the mailer distributed along the proposed project corridor, the displays exhibited at the meetings, the PowerPoint presentation given at the meetings, and meeting handouts and other materials, including the “wallgraphic” of public comments created during the meetings. Appendix B contains copies of all the comment forms submitted at the end of each meeting. 1. INTRODUCTION Planning for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project (DRC) began in 1991 with a study sponsored by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) that evaluated the feasibility of operating a commuter rail service in the corridor. The Dumbarton Commuter Service Feasibility Study recommended the rail service option as a long-term strategy, including future planned rail expansions. Pursuant to this long-term strategy, in 1994, the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) purchased the DRC right-of-way between Redwood Junction and Newark Junction as an investment for future commuter rail service. In 1997, SMCTA sponsored the Dumbarton Corridor Study to identify short- and long-term transit opportunities in coordination with other regional rail links. This study also concluded
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Recommendation Summary
    RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY San Fran c isco Bay July 2002 -----=~Jro:;~~~~ ~ ___________________Crossings Study After more than a year of careful study, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is preparing final recommendations for a strategy to not only ease the congestion plaguing various routes across San Froncisco Bay but to help deal with a projected 40 percent increase in transbay travel by 2025. Responding to a request by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein that a 1991 study be updated, MTC launched the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study in late 2000 and began analyzing the costs, travel impacts and environmental issues associated with a long list of options for three primary trans bay corridors: San Francisco-Oakland, San Mateo-Hayward and the Dumbarton Bridge corridors. Study Team Tackles Tough Questions The Bay Crossings Study team, which includes staff from MTC While the policy committee's draft recommendations focus on and other agencies, is led by a 13-member policy committee lower-cost improvements that could start going into place with­ (see box on page 6). The team's mission was to balance limit­ in months - and could be paid for with existing funds or a pos­ ed funds with the growing need for congestion relief on the sible $1 increase in tolls on state-owned toll bridges - it also three existing bridges and in BART's transbay tube. This raised recommends further investigation of a new mid-Bay bridge and a series of critical questions: Should we build a new crossing other big-ticket projects that could take many years to complete or try to move more people through existing corridors? Should and for which no funding sources have yet been identified.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain TIRCP Application Jan
    PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPLICATION FOR 2018 TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM FUNDS PROJECT NARRATIVE A. Project Title Page Project Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project (EEP) includes a series of incremental investments in the 51-mile Caltrain Corridor between the 4th and King Station (San Francisco) and the Tamien Station (San Jose). These investments are focused on expanding and fully converting Caltrain’s mainline diesel fleet to electric trains. This investment builds on and leverages the existing Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) and supports the goals of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), providing increased capacity and service flexibility, supporting state and interregional connectivity, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through elimination of diesel service from the mainline Peninsula Corridor. In addition to providing immediate, direct benefits, the EEP also represents an incremental step within a larger program of development that will evolve the Peninsula Corridor in a way that supports the ridership, service levels, and connectivity goals contemplated in the draft 2018 State Rail Plan. The central component of Caltrain’s 2018 TIRCP application is the purchase of 96 additional Electric Multiple Units (EMU). This procurement will fully exercise all available options under Caltrain’s current contract with Stadler and will provide sufficient EMUs to fully electrify Caltrain’s mainline fleet, while also sustaining and expanding capacity to accommodate growing demand. In addition to requesting funds for the purchase of EMUs, Caltrain is also requesting a smaller amount funding for a series of associated projects that will equip the corridor to receive and operate a fully electrified fleet in a way that allows the railroad to reap the maximum benefit from its investments.
    [Show full text]
  • SBC Executivesummfac
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SOUTH BAY CONNECT AUGUST 2020 Purpose Study Area and Project Elements South Bay Connect proposes to relocate the Capitol Corridor passenger rail service between the Oakland N Coliseum and Newark from the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Niles Subdivision to the Coast Subdivision for a faster, more direct route. It will also create new transbay connections for passengers between the East Bay and Peninsula by connecting to bus and shuttle services at the Ardenwood Station. The project is not proposing an increase in Capitol Corridor service frequency or changes to UP’s freight service, but does not preclude service growth in the future. The relocation will facilitate the separation of passenger and freight rail, resulting in improved rail operations, efficiency, and reliability while minimizing rail congestion within the corridor. Proposed New Station and Railroad Potential Station Area Proposed Capitol Corridor (CC) Service Potential Station Considered and Eliminated Existing CC Service Existing Station CC Service to be Discontinued Station where CC Service Study Area to be Discontinued UP Improvement Area BART Station Benefits Reduce passenger rail travel time between Oakland and San Jose and throughout the larger megaregion to increase ridership on transit, ease congestion on the Bay Area’s stressed roadways, and decrease auto commutes. Diversify and enhance network integration by reducing duplicative capital investments and dif- ferentiating Capitol Corridor’s intercity rail service from commuter rail and other transit services, including BART’s extension to San Jose. Support economic vitality by permitting enhanced rail movement and the preservation of freight rail capacity in the Northern California market through the reduction of existing conflicts between freight rail operations and passenger rail service.
    [Show full text]
  • Bair Island Restoration and Management Plan: Existing Hydrologic Conditions Assessment
    720 California Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94108-2404 tel: 415.262.2300 fax: 415.262.2303 email: sfo BAIR ISLAND RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN: EXISTING HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT Prepared for H.T. Harvey & Associates Prepared by Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. Revised June 30, 2000 PWA Ref. # 1413, Task 3 P:\Projects\1413_Bair_orig\Task3 ExConds\1413 hydroEC revision v2.doc 02/05/04 Services provided pursuant to this Agreement are intended solely for the use and benefit of H.T. Harvey & Associates and the San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society. No other person or entity shall be entitled to rely on the services, opinions, recommendations, plans or specifications provided pursuant to this agreement without the express written consent of Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., 770 Tamalpais Drive, Suite 401, Corte Madera, California 94925. P:\Projects\1413_Bair_orig\Task3 ExConds\1413 hydroEC revision v2.doc 02/05/04 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. HISTORIC SITE CONDITIONS 2 2.1 THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE 2 2.2 HUMAN INTERVENTION 2 3. EXISTING SITE CONFIGURATION AND GRADES 6 3.1 LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE 6 3.2 TOPOGRAPHY 7 3.2.1 Marshplains 7 3.2.2 Levees 8 3.3 HYDROGRAPHY 9 4. WIND CLIMATE 11 5. TIDAL CHARACTERISTICS 12 5.1 AVERAGE AND EXTREME TIDE ELEVATIONS 12 6. EXISTING DRAINAGE 13 6.1 ON-SITE 13 6.2 OFF-SITE 14 6.2.1 Prior Studies 14 6.2.2 Drainage Mechanisms 14 6.2.3 Regional Drainage Overview 15 6.2.4 Redwood Creek 15 6.2.5 Cordilleras Creek 17 6.2.6 Pulgas Creek 17 6.2.7 Steinberger Slough and San Francisco Bay 17 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of San Francisco Maritime Cargo and Warehouse Market Analysis
    PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME CARGO AND WAREHOUSE MARKET ANALYSIS January 5, 2009 FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Port of San Francisco Prepared by: CBRE Consulting, Inc. Martin Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 3 II. ASSESSEMENT OF EXISTING MARKETS............................................................................ 4 1 HISTORIC MARINE CARGO ACTIVITY AT WEST COAST PORTS............................................ 4 2 ASSESSMENT OF COMPETING BAY AREA PORTS ................................................................... 6 2.1 Port of Redwood City ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Port of Richmond .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Port of Stockton ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.4 Port of Sacramento........................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Port of Benicia................................................................................................................................... 8 3 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences
    CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara Valley Transportation
    SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination and Budgetary Comparison Schedule For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 Table of Contents Page(s) Independent Accountant’s Report ................................................................................................................. 1 Budgetary Comparison Schedule (On a Budgetary Basis) ........................................................................... 2 Notes to Budgetary Comparison Schedule ............................................................................................ 3 - 10 Supplementary Information – Program Summaries ............................................................................. 11 - 30 Supplementary Information – 2000 Measure A Ballot ........................................................................ 31 - 33 Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee 3331 North First Street San Jose, California 95134 We have examined the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) compliance with the requirements of the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program (2000 Measure A Program), a fund of VTA, for the year ended June 30, 2019. The
    [Show full text]
  • 4.9 Land Use and Planning
    Redwood City New General Plan 4.9 Land Use and Planning 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section describes existing land uses in and around the plan area, as well as applicable land use policies and regulations. Information in this section was derived from a technical land use background report, Redwood City General Plan Land Use Report, prepared in June 2008 by Hogle-Ireland, Inc., as well as CirclePoint’s reconnaissance of the plan area. 4.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The plan area covered by the New General Plan consists of the corporate City limits as well as lands within the City’s sphere of influence. The plan area comprises approximately 38 square miles within a diverse physical setting, with flat lands near the Bayfront area; hills in the western portion of the City; and the San Francisco Bay, stream corridors, and tidal marshes in the north and east. Current Land Use Patterns The current land use patterns reflect the diverse physical features within the plan area, with most office, commercial and residential uses south and west of U.S. 101 while most open space and industrial uses are north of U.S. 101 or in the southwestern foothill areas. The City consists of residential neighborhoods with varying densities and characters; a conventional downtown with retail, restaurant, office, and civic uses; active industrial areas, including research and development and heavy industrial uses associated with the Port of Redwood City; open space areas; and civic areas, including County offices, parks, schools, and community centers. These uses have been clustered within five distinct areas of the City reflecting their specific geographies and function, described below.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Bicycle Access & Parking Plan
    Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board CCaallttrraaiinn BBiiccyyccllee AAcccceessss && PPaarrkkiinngg PPllaann October 2, 2008 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board CCaallttrraaiinn BBiiccyyccllee AAcccceessss && PPaarrkkiinngg PPllaann October 2, 2008 Prepared by: Eisen|Letunic Transportation, Environmental and Urban Planning www.eisenletunic.com In association with: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants Table of Contents Chapters 4.5 Millbrae bicycle parking & boardings ................ 24 4.6 Millbrae issues & recommendations ................... 24 4.7 San Mateo bicycle parking & boardings ............. 25 Executive Summary ........................................................ iii 4.8 San Mateo issues & recommendations ............... 25 1. Introduction .................................................................. 1 4.9 Hillsdale bicycle parking & boardings ............... 26 2. Background .................................................................. 5 4.10 Hillsdale issues & recommendations .................. 26 3. Systemwide Issues ..................................................... 11 4.11 Redwood City bicycle parking & boardings ...... 27 4. Station‐specific Issues ............................................... 21 4.12 Redwood City issues & recommendations ........ 27 5. Innovations ................................................................. 33 4.13 Palo Alto parking & boardings ............................ 28 6. Funding and Next Steps ........................................... 37 4.14 Palo Alto issues &
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara City Council Presentation
    Caltrain Electrification Update Santa Clara City Council Presentation December 4, 2018 Agenda • Caltrain System Overview • Project Overview • Electric Train Design • Santa Clara Construction Activities • Questions Caltrain System • 32 Stations Gilroy to San Francisco • 92 Weekday Trains JPB owns right-of-way • At-Grade Crossings, from SF to San Jose viaducts, and bridges • Intermodal Connections • Bike Commuters Ridership At Capacity Today Bi-directional commute with riders standing on trains going southbound and northbound Aging Fleet At Retirement Age: 20/29 loco; 73/134 cars Regional Transportation Needs • US 101 and Interstate 280 Congested • Corridor supports growing economy • 75% Caltrain riders commute to work • 60% are choice riders Project Description Area Project Service 51 miles Electrification: Up to 79 mph • Overhead Contact Service Increase San Francisco System (OCS) • 6 trains / hour / direction to San Jose • Traction Power • More station stops / reduced travel (Tamien Station) Facilities time Electric Trains • Restore Atherton & Broadway service • 75 percent of fleet Mixed-fleet service (interim period) Continue tenant service • ACE, Capital Corridor, Amtrak, Freight Service Benefits Metric Today PCEP Example Baby Bullet Train Retain 5-6 stops 60 minutes 45 minutes Retain SF to SJ 6 stops 13 stops 60 minutes Example Redwood City Station Train stops / peak 3 5 hour Note: Prototypical Train and Schedule Key Regional Benefits (2040) Note: 2013 BAC Report, generates $2.5B economic activity and 9,600 jobs Schedule Electric Train
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study
    Draft Summary Report Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study October 2019 Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study Summary Report Background ......................................................................... 1 Figure 1: Location and Components of the Existing Project History ................................................................ 1 Transit Center................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Existing Transit Center Site Configuration – Project Goals ................................................................... 2 Looking Northeast from El Camino Real .................... 13 Study Description............................................................ 4 Figure 3: Phase 1 – Short Term: Existing Transit Center Site Improvements ...................................................... 15 Existing Conditions ............................................................. 5 Figure 4: Phase 2 – Long Term: Existing Transit Center Existing Transit Services ................................................ 5 Site Improvements ....................................................... 17 Parking ............................................................................ 6 Figure 5: Perry Street and Caltrain Parking Lot Configuration – View from the Arguello Street Transit Center Amenities ................................................ 6 Side of the Site ............................................................. 18 Land Use and Zoning ...................................................... 6 Figure
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
    Redwood City New General Plan 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section discusses surface waters, groundwater resources, storm water collection and transmission, and flooding characteristics in the plan area. Key sources of information for this section include the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) prepared by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (January 2007), the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Redwood City (2005), and the Unified Stream Assessment in Seven Watersheds in San Mateo County, California by the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (August 2008), Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton Consulting Engineers Water, Sewer Storm Drainage Master Plan dated 1986, and Winzler & Kelly’s Bayfront Canal Improvement Project Design Development Alternative Analysis, dated December 2003. 4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Hydrologic Conditions The regional climate of the plan area is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. Average annual precipitation in the plan area is about 20 inches. About 80 percent of local precipitation falls in the months of November through March. Over the last century for which precipitation records are available, annual precipitation has ranged from an historic low of 8.01 inches in 1976 to an historic high of 42.82 inches in 1983.1 Surface Waters Figure 4.4-1 (in Section 4.4, Biological Resources) depicts surface water bodies in the plan area, which include Redwood and Cordilleras Creeks and their tributaries. Also shown are bay channels, including Westpoint Slough, Corkscrew Slough, northerly reaches of Redwood Creek, Smith Slough and Steinberger Slough, the Atherton Channel (Marsh Creek), and the Bay Front Canal.
    [Show full text]