DOCSLIB.ORG

San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-Shore Linkages Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-Shore Linkages Project Final Report- Estuary 2100-2 “San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund” San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-shore Linkages Project Integrating Subtidal Habitat Restoration Projects to Increase Connectivity, Function, and Resiliency across Multiple Habitats in San Francisco Bay. July 10, 2015 Marilyn Latta, Project Manager, State Coastal Conservancy (510-286-4157, [email protected]) Contributors to this Report: San Francisco State University: Katharyn Boyer, Jen Miller, Cassie Pinnell, Julien Moderan, Stephanie Kiriakopolos and Kevin Stockmann University of California at Davis: Chela Zabin, Edwin Grosholz, Stephanie Kiriakopolos United States Geological Survey: Susan De La Cruz, Ashley Smith, Tanya Graham, and Laura Hollander ESA: Jeremy Lowe, Michelle Orr, Elena Vandebrook, Damien Kunz II. Table of Contents Executive summary of project goals and results……………………………………2-6 Progress in Addressing the Project’s Objectives…………………………………...6-11 Description of Project Components (substantive tasks)……………………………11-13 Partnerships…………………………………………………………………………13 Project Evaluation - Summary of monitoring results……………………………….13-18 Summary of Expected Outputs and Outcomes/Accomplished Deliverables………..17-18 Key messages, lessons learned and project implications……………………………18-19 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….20 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………..Attached II. Executive summary of project goals and results Introduction and project description The San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-shore Linkages Project is a multi- objective habitat restoration pilot project managed by the State Coastal Conservancy, in collaboration with biological and physical scientists with San Francisco State University, University of California, Davis, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, and consultants at ESA. Critical initial grant funding has been provided by the Environmental Protection Agency in partnership with the San Francisco Estuary Partnership/Association of Bay Area Governments, which was then matched by California State Coastal Conservancy with additional project funds provided by the California Wildlife Conservation Board and NOAA Fisheries. Additional project partners include landowners The Nature Conservancy and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and construction support was provided by the California Wildlife Foundation, Reef Innovations, Drakes Bay Oyster Company, and Dixon Marine Services. Grant term: March, 2010 – June, 2015 Funding from this grant: $300,000. Match funding $100,000 from the State Coastal Conservancy. Additional leveraged funding $1,510,000 in funding from multiple partners including the State Coastal Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, and NOAA Fisheries. While not a new concept nationally and globally, “living shorelines” projects are new to San Francisco Bay, where pilot restoration work on eelgrass and oyster reefs has led to recommendations for additional experimental testing of techniques and gradual scaling up to larger projects. The 2010 San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report (see www.sfbaysubtidal.org) recommended that the next generation of projects consider the possibility of integrating multiple habitat types to improve linkages among habitats and promote potential synergistic effects of different habitat features on each other as well as associated fauna. Such habitat features, if scaled up slightly beyond previous projects would have the potential to positively influence physical processes (such as sediment erosion and accretion) that influence shoreline configuration. With this critical first seed grant from the Estuary 2100-2 project led by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership with funding from EPA, the State Coastal Conservancy assembled an interdisciplinary team to build on previous restoration lessons and begin to test integrating multiple habitats. The project further tests subtidal restoration techniques, restores critical eelgrass and oyster habitat, tests the individual and interactive effects of restoration techniques on habitat values, begins to evaluate and test soft shoreline alternatives to hard/structural stabilization. Due to limited historical information on distribution and abundance of native oysters and eelgrass, we use the term “restoration” in the sense of enhancing valuable functions and services promoted by these types of features in San Francisco Bay and elsewhere, rather than in the strict sense of replacing previously known distributions or extent. 1 The project was designed in 2010-11, fully permitted in July 2012, and constructed over a three week window in July-August 2012. Eelgrass plantings and oyster treatments were installed at two sites: San Rafael Shoreline and the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve in Hayward. There is a larger project with both physical and biological goals at the San Rafael site, and a smaller project to test just oyster and eelgrass recruitment at both sites. The overarching goals of the project have remained consistent since the original project inception, but the final project constructed and monitored differs from the original grant proposal description, as approved by grant managers as the project design was finalized. This project is the first of its’ kind and scale in San Francisco Bay, testing an experimental “living shorelines approach” through construction of offshore native oyster and eelgrass reefs to achieve biological and habitat goals, and also test the ability of reefs to increase wave attenuation and protect the shoreline from erosion in the face of climate changes such as sea level rise. Existing subtidal areas are poorly understood and undermanaged, due to the limited research that has been done in submerged areas, but the connection between the subtidal bay and the shoreline edge is increasingly important with climate change. Subtidal environments in San Francisco Bay have harsh work conditions- with extremely cold temperatures and strong currents- that make conducting research, experiments, and restoration projects difficult in these areas. Developing complementary biological and physical goals in a sound restoration design has involved a lot of technical input and willingness to experiment by an interdisciplinary team and multiple regional land management and regulatory agencies. There were a wide variety of technical considerations ranging from land ownership and physical site selection considerations, permitting process and issues including current allowable beneficial fill amounts, and multiple special-status species considerations that were incorporated into the final design and construction timing. There have only been a few pilot subtidal restoration projects in the bay since 2002 and none at this one acre scale before. There are limited entities to lead the technical work and a need to better educate regional resource agency staff and key stakeholders on the goals, methods, and benefits of this type of multi-habitat and multi-objective approach. This truly is a pioneering and experimental project, particularly at this stage of new science with both subtidal restoration and pilot climate adaptation methods in San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report describes the many data gaps with subtidal habitats and restoration project methods, and therefore recommends a thoughtful and metered approach, starting with small-scale shoreline monitoring and slowly phasing up once key information has been gained on restoration methods and outcomes. The project development involved substantial communications and developing new partnerships between different science and management disciplines, new restoration techniques and methods, and new contractor and vendor partnerships. Planning specific logistics with oyster shell material purchase and configuration into reef elements, and the creation and configuration of artificial reef elements (Reef balls, etc.), required establishing methods and entities locally who could do the work. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission currently has limits on the amount of fill that can be placed in the bay due to concerns about development and filling of habitat, and the use of beneficial fill such as oyster shell is a new concept in San Francisco Bay that requires 2 discussion and experimental testing before permitting agencies will allow larger scale projects. BCDC is currently reviewing beneficial fill policies, particularly in light of climate change stressors and adaptation, and this project will provide new information that will help to guide fill policies moving forward. Oyster and eelgrass habitats are typically located in fairly quiescent estuarine conditions, and we are testing the ability of these species to provide ecosystem services in areas of the shoreline that receive wind waves, ferry and boat wakes, extreme king tides, etc. Site selection criteria had to include not only appropriate conditions for oyster and eelgrass beds, which can be ephemeral species, but also willing landowners who would give permission for access to their shoreline and subtidal parcels and co-sign on permits. Given our objectives and these constraints, we began the process of identifying locations to conduct this pilot project. We found it quite challenging to achieve siting that could permit us to meet all our objectives. We decided to identify criteria most critical to conducting the project, and also secondary criteria to meet if possible: Highest priority: Appropriate region and depth for eelgrass and oysters (based
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Marin Islands NWR Sport Fishing Plan
    Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 3 SPORT FISHING PLAN 3 1. Introduction 3 2. Statement of Objectives 4 3. Description of the Fishing Program 5 A. Area to be Opened to Fishing 5 B. Species to be Taken, Fishing periods, Fishing Access 5 C. Fishing Permit Requirements 7 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State 7 E. Law Enforcement 7 F. Funding and Staffing Requirements 8 4. Conduct of the Fishing Program 8 A. Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures (if applicable) 8 B. Refuge-Spec if ic Fishing Regulat ions 8 C. Relevant State Regulations 8 D. Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Sport Fishing 8 5. Public Engagement 9 A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program 9 B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program 9 C. How Anglers Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations 9 6. Compatibility Determination 9 7. Literature Cited 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed Sport Fishing Area Fishing…………………………………6 Marin Islands NWR Fishing Plan Page 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SPORT FISHING PLAN 1. Introduction National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
    [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]
  • Proposal for Pillar Point Rvpark Public Restroom and Green Space Design,Engineering,Permitting
    PPRROOPPOOSSAALL FFOORR PPIILLLLAARR PPOOIINNTT RRVV PPAARRKK PPUUBBLLIICC RREESSTTRROOOOMM AANNDD GGRREEEENN SSPPAACCEE DDEESSIIGGNN,, EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG,, PPEERRMMIITTTTIINNGG AANNDD CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN SSUUPPPPOORRTT SSEERRVVIICCEESS Submitted to: San Mateo County Harbor District Submitted by: Questa Engineering Corporation In Association with: Ware Associates Zeiger Engineers, Inc. mack5 October 7, 2019 October 7, 2019 San Mateo County Harbor District Attn: Deputy Secretary of the District 504 Ave Alhambra, Ste. 200 El Granada, CA 94018 Subject: Proposal for Pillar Point RV Park Public Restroom and Green Space Design, Engineering, Permitting and Construction Support Services Dear Mr. Moren: Questa Engineering Corporation is pleased to present this Proposal for the Pillar Point Project. We have assembled a highly qualified team, including Ware Associates (architecture/engineering services), Zeiger Engineers, Inc. (electrical engineering), and mack5 (cost estimating). Questa is widely recognized as one of California’s leading park and trail planning and engineering design firms for open space and natural park areas in constrained and challenging sites, including coastal and beach areas. We also have extensive experience in trail planning and design in parks, and sites with complex environmental and geotechnical issues. Questa provides complete services in planning, landscape architecture and engineering design of recreational improvement projects, from preliminary engineering investigations/feasibility studies and constraints
    [Show full text]
  • Bothin Marsh 46
    EMERGENT ECOLOGIES OF THE BAY EDGE ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE CMG Summer Internship 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Research Introduction 2 Approach 2 What’s Out There Regional Map 6 Site Visits ` 9 Salt Marsh Section 11 Plant Community Profiles 13 What’s Changing AUTHORS Impacts of Sea Level Rise 24 Sarah Fitzgerald Marsh Migration Process 26 Jeff Milla Yutong Wu PROJECT TEAM What We Can Do Lauren Bergenholtz Ilia Savin Tactical Matrix 29 Julia Price Site Scale Analysis: Treasure Island 34 Nico Wright Site Scale Analysis: Bothin Marsh 46 This publication financed initiated, guided, and published under the direction of CMG Landscape Architecture. Conclusion Closing Statements 58 Unless specifically referenced all photographs and Acknowledgments 60 graphic work by authors. Bibliography 62 San Francisco, 2019. Cover photo: Pump station fronting Shorebird Marsh. Corte Madera, CA RESEARCH INTRODUCTION BREADTH As human-induced climate change accelerates and impacts regional map coastal ecologies, designers must anticipate fast-changing conditions, while design must adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. With this task in mind, this research project investigates the needs of existing plant communities in the San plant communities Francisco Bay, explores how ecological dynamics are changing, of the Bay Edge and ultimately proposes a toolkit of tactics that designers can use to inform site designs. DEPTH landscape tactics matrix two case studies: Treasure Island Bothin Marsh APPROACH Working across scales, we began our research with a broad suggesting design adaptations for Treasure Island and Bothin survey of the Bay’s ecological history and current habitat Marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Oyster Reef Construction Underway in Richmond San
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact: Taylor Samuelson [email protected] 510-286-4182 April 19, 2019 Native Oyster Reef Construction Underway in Richmond San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines Project 350 Reef Structures will become habitat for Native Oysters and Pacific Herring Richmond, CA - From April 9-30, 350 oyster reef elements are being placed in nearshore areas to create a living shoreline near Giant Marsh at Point Pinole Regional Shoreline managed by East Bay Regional Park District in the City of Richmond. Eelgrass beds will be planted next to the reefs in the following weeks to create a habitat ideal for the recruitment of native Olympia oysters and other aquatic species. Living shorelines use nature-based infrastructure to create shoreline buffers that reduce the impacts from sea level rise and erosion, while creating habitat for fish and wildlife. Though a relatively new climate adaptation technique, living shorelines are proving to be an effective approach to protecting coastal resources and shoreline communities. The Giant Marsh project is one of a small number of living shoreline trial projects taking place in the San Francisco Bay, but is the only one that connects the submerged underwater habitats with adjacent wetlands and upland ecotone plant communities. This innovative demonstration project is testing a combined living shorelines approach with habitat elements at different tidal elevations at the same site, with a goal of encouraging other cities and partners to undertake this kind of climate adaptation habitat restoration project at additional sites in the bay. The multi-habitat project at Giant Marsh builds on lessons learned from the Coastal Conservancy’s living shoreline project constructed directly across the bay in San Rafael in 2012, which included the construction of oyster reefs and eelgrass beds.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region
    Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region July 2009 Executive Summary Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. §1855(b)), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as the federal lead and co-lead agencies, respectively, submit this Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region. This document provides an assessment of the potential effects of the on-going dredging and dredged material placement activities of all federal and non-federal maintenance dredging projects in the action area (see Figure 1.1 located on page 3). The SF Bay LTMS program area spans 11 counties, including: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties. It does not include the mountainous or inland areas far removed from navigable waters. The geographic scope of potential impacts included in this consultation (action area) comprises the estuarine waters of the San Francisco Bay region, portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) west of Sherman Island and the western portion of the Port of Sacramento and Port of Stockton deep water ship channels. It also includes the wetlands and shallow intertidal areas that form a margin around the Estuary and the tidal portions of its tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX
    City of Richmond Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX City of Richmond Climate Action Plan Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study Acknowledgements The City of Richmond has been an active participant in the Contra Costa County Adapting to Rising Tides Project, led by the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the San Francisco Estuary Institute, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and consulting firm AECOM. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) completed this Adaptation Study in coordination with BCDC, relying in part on reports and maps developed for the Adapting to Rising Tides project to assess the City of Richmond’s vulnerabilities with respect to sea level rise and coastal flooding. City of Richmond Climate Action Plan F-i Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study This page intentionally left blank F-ii City of Richmond Climate Action Plan Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study Table of Contents Acknowledgements i 1. Executive Summary 1 1.1 Coastal Flooding 2 1.2 Water Supply 2 1.3 Critical Transportation Assets 3 1.4 Vulnerable Populations 3 1.5 Summary 3 2. Study Methodology 4 2.1 Scope and Organize 4 2.2 Assess 4 2.3 Define 4 2.4 Plan 5 2.5 Implement and Monitor 5 3. Setting 6 3.1 Statewide Climate Change Projections 6 3.2 Bay Area Region Climate Change Projections 7 3.3 Community Assets 8 3.4 Relevant Local Planning Initiatives 9 3.5 Relevant State and Regional Planning Initiatives 10 4.
    [Show full text]
  • MARTIN GRIFFIN an Oral History Interview Conducted by Debra Schwartz in 2015
    Mill Valley Oral History Program A collaboration between the Mill Valley Historical Society and the Mill Valley Public Library MARTIN GRIFFIN An Oral History Interview Conducted by Debra Schwartz in 2015 © 2015 by the Mill Valley Public Library TITLE: Oral History of Martin Griffin INTERVIEWER: Debra Schwartz DESCRIPTION: Transcript, 37 pages INTERVIEW DATE: October 20th, 2015 In this oral history, physician, naturalist, champion of open spaces and bane of developers Martin Griffin recounts with warmth and humor his long and extraordinarily active life. Born in Ogden, Utah, in 1920 to nature-loving parents, Martin moved with his family to Portland, Oregon, when the Great Depression hit, and then down to Los Angeles and finally up to Oakland, where he attended elementary school through high school. Martin recalls some early experiences that shaped his love for the environment, including his involvement with the Boy Scouts, where he met the graduate student entomologist Brighton C. “Bugs” Cain, who profoundly inspired him. It was also as a boy that Martin came over to Mill Valley for the first time, making his way by ferry and train, to go hiking on Mt. Tamalpais. He conjures the beautiful vision he had from the ridge that day of white birds down on Bolinas Lagoon, a vision which made such a powerful impression on him and would, years later, feed the flames of his conservationist passion. Martin recounts being involved in ROTC while an undergraduate at U.C. Berkeley, later attending medical school at Stanford, where he got married, and moving over to Marin to begin his medical practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Control Calendar (PDF
    2007 San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Control Program Schedule Updated: 9/14/07 More information on: Treatment methods Imazapyr Site Locations Treatment Location Treatment Method (gray areas denote sites where treatment was not planned this year or was completed) Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Sub-Area Amphibious Aerial: Aerial: Spray Covering with Manual Site # Site Name Sub-Area Name County Treatment date Truck Backpack Boat Excavation Number vehicle Broadcast Ball Geotextile Fabric Digging 01a Channel Mouth Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 XX 01b Lower Channel (not including mouth) Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 XX 01c Upper Channel Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 Alameda Flood Control XX 1 Upper Channel - Union City Blvd to I- Channel 01d Alameda 7/23-7/27/07 XX 880 01e Strip Marsh No. of Channel Mouth Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 X 01f Pond 3-AFCC Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 XX Belmont Slough/Island, North Point, 02a Bird Island, Steinberger Slough/ San Mateo 9/10-9/13/07 XX Redwood Shores Steinberger Slough South, Corkscrew 02b San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 XXX Slough, Redwood Creek North 02c B2 North Quadrant San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 XX 02d B2 South Quadrant - Rookery San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 X 2 Bair/Greco Islands 02e West Point Slough NW San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 XX 02f Greco Island North San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 X 02g West Point Slough SW and East San Mateo 8/27- 8/30/07 XX 02h Greco Island South San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 X 02i Ravenswood Slough & Mouth San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 XX 02j Ravenswood Open Space Preserve San Mateo 9/10-9/13/07 X 03a Blackie's Creek (above bridge) Marin 8/29/07 X 3 Blackie's
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Spartina Project (Cordgrass)
    SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT 2612-A 8th Street ● Berkeley ● California 94710 ● (510) 548-2461 Preserving native wetlands PEGGY OLOFSON PROJECT DIRECTOR [email protected] Date: July 1, 2011 INGRID HOGLE MONITORING PROGRAM To: Jennifer Krebs, SFEP MANAGER [email protected] From: Peggy Olofson ERIK GRIJALVA FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGER Subject: Report of Work Completed Under Estuary 2100 Grant #X7-00T04701 [email protected] DREW KERR The State Coastal Conservancy received an Estuary 2100 Grant for $172,325 to use FIELD OPERATIONS ASSISTANT MANAGER for control of non-native invasive Spartina. Conservancy distributed the funds [email protected] through sub-grants to four Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) partners, including Cali- JEN MCBROOM fornia Wildlife Foundation, San Mateo Mosquito Abatement District, Friends of CLAPPER RAIL MONITOR‐ ING MANAGER Corte Madera Creek Watershed, and State Parks and Recreation. These four ISP part- [email protected] ners collectively treated approximately 90 net acres of invasive Spartina for two con- MARILYN LATTA secutive years, furthering the baywide eradication of invasive Spartina restoring and PROJECT MANAGER 510.286.4157 protecting many hundreds of acres of tidal marsh (Figure 1, Table 1). In addition to [email protected] treatment work, the grant funds also provided laboratory analysis of water samples Major Project Funders: collected from treatment sites where herbicide was applied, to confirm that water State Coastal Conser‐ quality was not degraded by the treatments. vancy American Recovery & ISP Partners and contractors conducted treatment work in accordance with Site Spe- Reinvestment Act cific Plans prepared by ISP (Grijalva et al. 2008; National Oceanic & www.spartina.org/project_documents/2008-2010_site_plans_doc_list.htm), and re- Atmospheric Admini‐ stration ported in the 2008-2009 Treatment Report (Grijalva & Kerr, 2011; U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H Cultural Resources
    GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL APPENDIX H CULTURAL RESOURCES This appendix contains the following items: The Cultural Resources Existing Conditions and Survey Methodology Report and Archaeological Survey to support the assessment of the effects of the proposed project on historic properties. Documentation of coordination with tribal governments including the FAA’s government-to-government consultations with tribes in accordance with Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments and FAA Order 1210.20 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures. Documentation of the FAA’s consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that resulted in the FAA’s determination that the Gnoss Field Airport Runway Extension Project would have no effect on historic properties. Landrum & Brown Appendix H - Cultural Resources June 2014 Page H-1 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Landrum & Brown Appendix H - Cultural Resources June 2014 Page H-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY REPORT AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT For the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to Evaluate the Proposed Extension of Runway 13/31 at Gnoss Field Airport Marin County, Novato, California Dwight D. Simons, Ph.C and Kim J. Tremaine, Ph.C., RPA TREMAINE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 859 Stillwater Road, Suite 1 West Sacramento, CA 95605 November 6, 2009 Revised July 18, 2011 Submitted To Landrum and Brown, Inc. 11279 Cornell Park Drive Cincinnati, OH 45242 Page H-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]