DOCSLIB.ORG

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Coast Guard Action Special Local Regulation and Safety Zone, America's Cup Sailing Events, San Fran

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Coast Guard Action Special Local Regulation and Safety Zone, America's Cup Sailing Events, San Fran ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Coast Guard Action Special Local Regulation and Safety Zone, America’s Cup Sailing Events, San Francisco, CA April 15, 2012 PREPARED FOR: Department of Homeland Security U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 34TH AMERICA’S CUP‐COAST GUARD ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1‐1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 Purpose and Need for The Action .......................................................................................... 1‐3 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 1‐4 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ............................................................................... 1‐4 1.5 Summary of Laws ..................................................................................................................... 1‐4 1.6 Summary of Regulations ......................................................................................................... 1‐6 1.7 Summary of Policies ................................................................................................................. 1‐7 1.8 Scoping Process and Public Participation ............................................................................. 1‐8 1.9 Issues and Impact Topics ......................................................................................................... 1‐9 2. ALTERNATIVES 2‐1 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.2 Background ............................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.3 Alternatives Development Process ........................................................................................ 2‐1 2.4 Summary of Alternatives Evaluated ...................................................................................... 2‐2 2.5 Geographic Extent of Analysis ............................................................................................... 2‐2 2.6 Measures as Part of the Project Alternatives to Avoid or Reduce Impacts ...................... 2‐3 2.7 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................... 2‐4 2.8 Alternative B – East‐West Regulated Area (Primary) and North‐South Regulated Area (Contingency) .................................................................................................................. 2‐5 2.9 Alternative C – East‐West Regulated Area Shifted East by 1,500 feet in 2012 and North‐South Regulated Area (Contingency) ...................................................................... 2‐10 2.10 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study ...................................................................... 2‐11 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3‐1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 3‐1 3.2.1 General Marine Habitat Types and Associated Biota ............................................... 3‐2 3.3 Maritime Navigation and Safety .......................................................................................... 3‐16 3.3.1 Navigational Environment ......................................................................................... 3‐16 3.3.2 Commercial Vessel Traffic .......................................................................................... 3‐18 3.3.3 Recreational and Fishing Boats .................................................................................. 3‐22 3.4 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................................... 3‐27 3.4.1 Local Economy ............................................................................................................. 3‐27 3.4.2 Regional Economy ....................................................................................................... 3‐34 3.5 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 3‐40 3.5.1 Recreational Boating .................................................................................................... 3‐41 3.5.2 Other Recreational Water Uses .................................................................................. 3‐41 The 34th America’s Cup‐Coast Guard Action/Environmental Assessment i April 15, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4‐1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.1 General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts ........................................................... 4‐1 4.2 Cumulative effects .................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 4‐3 4.3.1 Study Area/Context ....................................................................................................... 4‐3 4.3.2 Issues ............................................................................................................................... 4‐3 4.3.3 Guiding Policies and Regulations‐Wildlife ................................................................ 4‐3 4.3.4 Guiding Policies and Regulations‐Special‐status Species ........................................ 4‐6 4.3.5 Assessment Methods/Thresholds ................................................................................ 4‐7 4.3.6 Alternative A: No Action ............................................................................................ 4‐12 4.3.7 Alternative B: East‐West Regulated Area (primary) and North‐South Regulated Area (contingency) .................................................................................... 4‐12 4.3.8 Alternative C: East‐West Regulated Area Shifted East by 1,500 Feet in 2012 (primary) and North‐South (contingency) ............................................................... 4‐17 4.3.9 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 4‐18 4.4 Maritime Navigation and Safety .......................................................................................... 4‐18 4.4.1 Study Area/Context ..................................................................................................... 4‐18 4.4.2 Issues ............................................................................................................................. 4‐19 4.4.3 Guiding Regulations and Policies.............................................................................. 4‐19 4.4.4 Assessment Methods/Thresholds .............................................................................. 4‐22 4.4.5 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives ........................................................... 4‐23 4.4.6 Alternative A: No Action ............................................................................................ 4‐23 4.4.7 Alternative B: East‐West Regulated Area (primary) and North‐South Regulated Area (contingency) .................................................................................... 4‐24 4.4.8 Alternative C: East‐West Regulated Area Shifted East by 1,500 Feet in 2012 (primary) and North‐South (contingency) ............................................................... 4‐30 4.5 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................................... 4‐31 4.5.1 Study Area/Context ..................................................................................................... 4‐31 4.5.2 Issues ............................................................................................................................. 4‐32 4.5.3 Guiding Regulations and Policies.............................................................................. 4‐33 4.5.4 Assessment Methods/Thresholds .............................................................................. 4‐33 4.5.5 Alternative A: No Action ............................................................................................ 4‐36 4.5.6 Alternative B: East‐West Regulated Area (primary) and North‐South Regulated Area (contingency) .................................................................................... 4‐36 4.5.7 Alternative C: East‐west Regulated Area Shifted East by 1,500 Feet in 2012 (primary) and North‐South (contingency) ............................................................... 4‐43 4.6 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 4‐43 4.6.1 Study Area/Context ..................................................................................................... 4‐43 4.6.2 Issues ............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BAYLANDS & CREEKS South San Francisco
    Oak_Mus_Baylands_SideA_6_7_05.pdf 6/14/2005 11:52:36 AM M12 M10 M27 M10A 121°00'00" M28 R1 For adjoining area see Creek & Watershed Map of Fremont & Vicinity 37°30' 37°30' 1 1- Dumbarton Pt. M11 - R1 M26 N Fremont e A in rr reek L ( o te C L y alien a o C L g a Agua Fria Creek in u d gu e n e A Green Point M a o N l w - a R2 ry 1 C L r e a M8 e g k u ) M7 n SF2 a R3 e F L Lin in D e M6 e in E L Creek A22 Toroges Slou M1 gh C ine Ravenswood L Slough M5 Open Space e ra Preserve lb A Cooley Landing L i A23 Coyote Creek Lagoon n M3 e M2 C M4 e B Palo Alto Lin d Baylands Nature Mu Preserve S East Palo Alto loug A21 h Calaveras Point A19 e B Station A20 Lin C see For adjoining area oy Island ote Sand Point e A Lucy Evans Lin Baylands Nature Creek Interpretive Center Newby Island A9 San Knapp F Map of Milpitas & North San Jose Creek & Watershed ra Hooks Island n Tract c A i l s Palo Alto v A17 q i ui s to Creek Baylands Nature A6 o A14 A15 Preserve h g G u u a o Milpitas l Long Point d a S A10 A18 l u d p Creek l A3N e e i f Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity Creek & Watershed Calera y A16 Berryessa a M M n A1 A13 a i h A11 l San Jose / Santa Clara s g la a u o Don Edwards San Francisco Bay rd Water Pollution Control Plant B l h S g Creek d u National Wildlife Refuge o ew lo lo Vi F S Environmental Education Center .
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessibility Guide SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME National Historical Park | Ca San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park
    National Park Service | Department of the Interior Accessibility Guide SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK | CA San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Accessibility Guide Table of Contents Accessibility Guide............................................................................................................................... 1 Meeting Everybody’s Needs – An Overview ........................................................................................... 2 Planning Your Visit ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Personal Assistance Requests: Please Call 5 Days in Advance.................................................................... 3 Disabled Parking Placards – For Out-of-State Visitors................................................................................... 3 Check for Updates Online ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Arriving and Parking ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Landscape and Main Pathways................................................................................................................................. 4 Park Website...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Report
    APPENDIX A Biological Resources Report Residence Inn and Event Center Biological Resources Report Project #3660-01 Prepared for: David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San José , CA 95126 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates December 2015 Rev. January 2016 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ i Section 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Section 2.0 Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Section 3.0 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 General Project Area Description ........................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Biotic Habitats ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Swimmers Revel in Experience Despite Traffic, Bites, and Pathogens
    ESTUARY 1 SCIENCE • RESTORATION • WATERSHED • POLITICS SPECIES BAY • WATERSHED SCIENCE • RESTORATION San Francisco Estuary Partnership Bay Swimmers Revel in Experience Despite Traffic, Bites, and Pathogens Slot Limits for Sevengills? Cocktail of Six Antibotics, Three Anti-Depressants, and One Anti-Diabetic Medicating our Bay Estuary Managers Confront Coastal Challenges Green Cement Blues Sierra to Sea Reflowed NE WS DECEMBER 2018 VOL. 27, NO. 4 Pharmaceuticals . 2 Bay Swimming . 3 Shark Fishing . 5 Hunters Point . 7 Sierra to the Sea . 9 Estuary Programs . 13 Harbor Seals . 15 Sediment Mounds . 16 Cement Plant . 18 2 DECEMBER 2018 ESTUARY NEWS MONITORING ill effects. Also on the list are three antidepressants, a class that has been shown to have physiological effects on mollusks, crustaceans, Medicating the Bay algae, and protozoans, and to impact fish survival and reproduction. NATE SELTENRICH, REPORTER large Brita filter of activated REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FOUR DRUGS Pharmaceuticals are pouring into carbon with sand and gravel,” the Bay, even if we never flush pills. explains Karin North, 1,000,000 watershed protection High Removal Efficiency influent Compounds in painkillers and other effluent common oral drugs are still excreted manager for the city of Palo 100,000 from our bodies, routed through Alto. “It just gets those small wastewater treatment plants that particles out, and since a lot 10,000 of these contaminants like to can’t remove them completely, then Low Removal Efficiency discharged to the Bay where they may sorb onto the solids, that’s 1,000 harm marine life. where you might find them.” 100 The problem isn’t unique to In order to fully remove pharmaceuticals, says North, (ng/L) Concentration the Bay Area, affecting waterways 10 worldwide.
    [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]
  • Datum Errors for West Coast of the United States (California, Oregon, Washington)
    Tidal Datum Errors for West Coast of the United States (California, Oregon, Washington) Standard deviation (or accuracy) of Tidal Datum Computations: The time period necessary to incorporate all of the major astronomical tide producing cycles into the computation of a tidal datum is 19-years. All tidal datums are referenced to specific 19-year National Tidal Datum Epochs (NTDE). First reduction tidal datums are determined directly by averaging values of the tidal parameters over a 19-year NDTE. Errors in determination of tidal datums using First Reduction for the 19-year NTDE are theoretically zero. NTDE datums for short-term subordinate stations are computed and adjusted to a 19-year NTDE equivalent using simultaneous comparison with an appropriate nearby control station (NOS, 2003, Swanson, 1974, and Marmer, 1951). See Gill and Fisher, 2008: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Technical_Memorandum_NOS_COOPS_0048.pdf for the areas of coverage for tidal datum computation for each National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) control tide station. Errors in determination of tidal datums at short-term stations through the method of simultaneous comparison are known to be generally correlated with the length if the subordinate station observations, with geographic distance from the control station and with difference in range of tide and time of tide between control and subordinate stations. In applied research performed by Bodnar (1981), multiple curvilinear regression equations estimating the accuracy of computed 19-year equivalent tidal datums were developed. The formulas for Mean Low Water were adopted for use in estimating tidal datum errors because the low water differences express the effects of shallow water and bottom friction better than MHW.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Issue 42 Fall 2012 the Year 2012 Marks the 40Th
    Newsletter Issue 42 Fall 2012 The year 2012 marks the 40th anniversary of the passage of the bill that established the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. It seems appropriate to reflect not only on our successes and where we go from here, but also how our baylands would be different if the members of the South San Francisco Baylands Planning, Conservation and National Wildlife Refuge Committee, had not been successful. Florence LaRiviere reflects: “ If our determined group had not met in 1967, committed to establishing a national wildlife refuge on the Bay, I shudder to imagine the view from what is the Refuge Headquarters in Fremont today. You probably couldn’t get to that spot to begin with, because the upscale houses covering the hill would be gated. But suppose you were able to make your way through the buildings, then stand atop that hill to look The efforts of the South San Francisco Baylands around. To the west, residential developments for forty to fifty thousand people would Planning, Conservation and National Wildlife Refuge Committee helped forever preserve this wonderful be where the salt ponds exist there today. Then, turn around and look east; not one view. speck of green marsh would be visible where the buildings stop today; instead, solid Photo Courtesy of Sam High development would stretch as far as the eye can see. If that image doesn’t shock you, drive down to Alviso, and climb the stairs at the Inside this issue: handsome Education Center nestled in the winter marsh. The land would have been indefinitely exploited for industrial usage.
    [Show full text]
  • COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation June 30, 2004
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation June 30, 2004 INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT (ISP) PHASE II- CONTROL PROGRAM AT: COYOTE CREEK/MOWRY SLOUGH, OLD ALAMEDA CREEK, AND WHALE’S TAIL MARSH 99-054 Project Manager: Maxene Spellman RECOMMENDED ACTION: Amendment of the Conservancy’s September 25, 2003 authorization to disburse funds from existing CALFED grants for the removal of invasive Spartina by authorizing the supplemental disbursement of up to $119,500 of CALFED funds and up to $50,000 of Conservancy funds as grants for expanded and additional Spartina control and treatment demonstration projects within the southern San Francisco Bay Estuary and for a signage program associated with the demonstration projects. LOCATION: The baylands, creeks and sloughs of southwestern Alameda County. PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location and Site Map Exhibit 2: September 25, 2003 Staff Recommendation Exhibit 3: Environmental Documentation: Site-specific Plans and Checklists for Proposed Expanded and New Demonstration Projects RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31160-31164 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby amends its September 25, 2003 authorization for grants for control and treatment under the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) Control Program by authorizing the supplemental disbursement of up to one hundred nineteen thousand five hundred dollars ($119,500) of existing CALFED funds to carry out expanded and new control and treatment demonstration projects under the ISP Control Program and up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) of Conservancy funds to implement a signage program for the demonstration projects, for a total disbursement of three hundred fifty thousand one hundred dollars ($ 350,100).
    [Show full text]
  • South San Francisco Bay Weed Management Plan 1St Edition
    South San Francisco Bay Weed Management Plan 1st Edition Prepared by Meg Marriott, Rachel Tertes and Cheryl Strong U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1 Marshlands Road, Fremont, CA 94555 For: Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project November 20, 2013 Literature Citation Should Read As Follows: Marriott, M., Tertes, R. and C. Strong. 2013. South San Francisco Bay Weed Management Plan. 1st Edition. Unpublished report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fremont, CA. 82pp. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Site Description and History ..................................................................................................................... 6 Weed Management Areas ......................................................................................................................... 7 WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 12 Weed Management Program Goals .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Harbor Seal (Phoca Vitulina) Population Dynamics and Survival in Northern California
    WILD HARBOR SEAL (PHOCA VITULINA) POPULATION DYNAMICS AND SURVIVAL IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA A thesis submitted to the faculty of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree Master of Science In Marine Science by Suzanne Camille Manugian San Francisco, California December 2013 Copyright by Suzanne Camille Manugian 2013 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read Wild harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) population dynamics and survival in northern California by Suzanne Camille Manugian, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree: Master of Science in Marine Science at San Francisco State University. ________________________________________________ James T. Harvey Director, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories ________________________________________________ Ellen Hines Professor, Department of Geography and Environment ________________________________________________ Benjamin Becker Director and Marine Ecologist, Pacific Coast Science and Learning Center WILD HARBOR SEAL (PHOCA VITULINA) POPULATION DYNAMICS AND SURVIVAL IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Suzanne Camille Manugian San Francisco, California 2013 Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) within San Francisco Bay (SFB) have been described as stable compared with those in coastal northern California, like Tomales Bay (TB). Historical data (1970s – early 2000s) indicated an overall increase in adults and pup production. Recent data, however, revealed SFB and TB adult counts decreased while pup production increased. There is a paucity of life history data, such as survival rates, for northern California harbor seals. For 32 radio-tagged adult females, survival was 98.2% over 20 months 2011 through 2013, constant between bays and influenced by an individual’s axillary girth.
    [Show full text]