DOCSLIB.ORG

San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Project Information Sheet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Project Information Sheet SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET PLEASE CONTACT SANDRA SCOGGIN AT [email protected] OR 415-699-3586 FOR ASSISTANCE. Project Name: (Project name should be geographic and descriptive.) Spinnaker Marsh Restoration. Location and Site Setting: Description and attached maps. The 17-acre Spinnaker Marsh is in San Rafael, Marin County, California. It is located along the bay shore on the south side of the confluence of San Rafael Creek (the “Canal”) with San Rafael Bay, an embayment of San Pablo Bay (Figure 1). Spinnaker Marsh is part of the four-lagoon, 41-acre Spinnaker Lagoon Complex, consisting of a large West Lagoon (22 acres) that is perennially flooded and serves as a flood detention basin and wildlife pond, two small central ponds (each about 1.5 acres) that are seasonally inundated by rainfall, and the “East” or “Spinnaker” Marsh (16 acres) (Figure 2). The Lagoon Complex is located in east San Rafael, between Spinnaker Point Drive to the north and Baypoint Drive to the south. A segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail sits atop the enclosing levee along the east, north, and south sides of Spinnaker Marsh. The Canalways diked salt marsh is to the immediate southwest of the lagoons. Historically, the area was open bay and mudflats prior to levee construction in the 1950s. After diking, emergent salt marsh had formed across the higher half the site, and shallow open water occupied the lower elevations. The site receives direct rainfall and City- managed bay inflows and drainage through a 150-foot long, 8-inch culvert fitted with a screw-flap combination gate. Latitude: 37.9628, Longitude: -122.4910; See figures 1 and 2. Project Description: General description. This project will restore tidal marsh and upland transition habitat at the 17-acre Spinnaker Marsh (Figure 3). Project purposes are to (1) restore habitats for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, shorebirds and waterfowl, (2) resolve harmful algal blooms, and (3) construct a segment of future Central San Rafael shoreline flood protection improvements. The new setback levee will have lower gradient tidal slopes to function as flood and erosion protection and transition zone habitats. This project will provide much-needed wetlands-related wildlife habitat along a segment of the Marin County shoreline with relatively little wetlands. It will also provide a segment of a future shoreline flood and erosion protection strategy for the entirety of the 10-mile Central San Rafael shoreline. Further, it brings a nature-based sea level rise shoreline flood and erosion protection project to the doorsteps of Marin County’s largest disadvantaged community and incorporates the effort into educational opportunities to support community and in particular youth engagement. Total Project Area Acreage: 17 acres. 1 Project start date: (MM/YYYY): 01/2015 Activities included in this project: Construction activities will include a new setback levee and a bridge across the tidal breach to maintain the Bay Trail (Figure 3). This project will also look into the possible reuse of suitable dredged sediments, if available. Constructing a sea-level rise adaptable setback levee with gentle bay-side slopes and breaching the existing outer levee (1) removes harmful toxins by improving water quality through establishing tidal wetlands; (2) improves wildlife habitat by restoring tidal marsh and creating a wetland-upland habitat transition with sea level rise accommodation plus associated stewardship, maintenance and monitoring; (3) creates nature-based shoreline and flood protection for a portion of San Rafael by creating a suitable-height and gentle sloped habitat levee that can be raised with future sea level rise; and (4) improves public access and education with bridge across the tidal breach that allows direct over-water observation and sampling access and new multi-lingual interpretative signage about sea level rise and shoreline erosion and flood protection. Is this project part of a Living Shorelines project? y/n: Y Lead Agency/Contact Person: (name, affiliation, mailing address, email address, phone/fax number) Lead: • City of San Rafael o Kevin McGowan, 111 Morphew Street, San Rafael, CA 94901; [email protected]; 415-485-3389 • Siegel Environmental and SF Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve o Stuart Siegel, 637 Lindaro St, Suite 201, San Rafael, CA 94901, [email protected], (415) 299-8746. o Stuart is the project organizer on behalf of City of San Rafael. List all partners involved in the project and their roles: (funder, cooperator, lead, etc. – one partner can have multiple roles) Lead: City of San Rafael, with Siegel Environmental. Also active with Central San Rafael shoreline flood protection and sea level rise adaptation. Close coordination ongoing with Spinnaker and Baypoint Homeowners Associations, Marin Audubon, Marin Conservation League. Project Status: (please see the Prioritization Criteria and describe the level of “readiness” of the project) Requesting adoption as SFBJV project. The project is currently in Phase 1 - the preliminary design and planning phase. 2 Funding status – received/needed: Received: $40,000 for development of Conceptual Design Alternatives (completed February 2016) Need: $3,000,000. San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Project Adoption and Prioritization Criteria: Detail how your project meets Essential and Desirable criteria for adoption as a SFBJV project. Consistency with SFBJV Essential Project Adoption Criteria: • Project implements recommendations in the original Habitat Goals Report (1999) and the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Update (2015) • Project implements three of the four SFBJV Implementation Strategy objectives: (1) secure, restore and improve wetlands, riparian habitat, and associated uplands by applying incentives and non-regulatory techniques, (2) improve habitat management on public and private lands through cooperative agreements and incentives, and (3) support the monitoring and evaluation of habitat restoration projects and research to improve future restoration projects. • The project advances the goals of the SFBJV by restoring habitats for key species. • The purpose of the project has a strong biological foundation. • The project is being implemented by a partnership of organizations and agencies, including the City of San Rafael, Marin County, local residents and community groups and with input from the SF Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Consistency with SFBJV Desirable Project Adoption Criteria: • The project benefits more than one key species – salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgway’s Rail, migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, estuarine and anadromous fish. • The project restores more than one habitat type – tidal aquatic, tidal marsh, wetland-upland transition, and associated uplands. • The project is near to the limited extant natural areas along the Central San Rafael shoreline – Tiscornia Marsh and Canalways as well as nearby mudflats and subtidal habitats. • The project is planning for the effects of climate change – providing nature-based shoreline erosion and flood protection benefits that accounts for sea level rise and can be raised later. 3 .
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]
  • 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]
  • 2019-02 Hscminutes FINAL
    Harbor Safety Committee of the San Francisco Bay Region Thursday, February 14, 2019 Port of San Francisco, Pier 1, Bayside Conference Room The Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA Capt. Lynn Korwatch (M), Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region (Marine Exchange), Chair of the Harbor Safety Committee (HSC); called the meeting to order at 10:03. Marcus Freeling (A), Marine Exchange, confirmed the presence of a quorum of the HSC. Committee members (M) and alternates (A) in attendance with a vote: John Berge (M), Pacific Merchant Shipping Association; Ted Blanckenburg (A), AmNav Maritime Services; Capt. Marie Byrd (A), United States Coast Guard; Capt. Bob Carr (M), San Francisco Bar Pilots; Sejal Choksi-Chugh (M), San Francisco Baykeeper; Jeff Ferguson (M), NOAA; Aaron Golbus (M), Port of San Francisco; Scott Grindy (M), San Francisco Small Craft Harbor; Chris Hendry (M), Chevron Shipping Company; Ben Huber (M), Westar Marine Services; Capt. Thomas Kirsch (M), Blue and Gold Fleet; John Koeppen (A), Owner/Operator Fishing Vessel Lulu; Jim Mazza (A), US Army Corps of Engineers; Jim McGrath (M), Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Jeff Robbins (M), General Steamship Corporation; Julian Rose (M), Marathon Petroleum; Jeff Vine (M), Port of Stockton. The meetings are always open to the public. Approval of the Minutes- A motion to accept the minutes of the January 10, 2019 meeting was made and seconded. The minutes were approved without dissent. Comments by Chair- Capt. Lynn Korwatch Welcomed the committee members and audience. Coast Guard Report- Capt. Marie Byrd Advised that Capt. Ceraolo will be at the March HSC meeting to say farewell before he leaves Sector San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Spend 50 Perfect Hours in San Rafael
    EAT + DRINK STYLE CULTURE PLAY TECH TRAVEL OAKLAND BEST OF SAN FRANCISCO EVENTS WINE COUNTRY TAHOE HIGHWAY 1 EAST BAY MARIN How to Spend 50 Perfect Hours in San Rafael By Katie Morell on November 06, 2015 9:00 AM Like 129 Tweet 6 22 Download the Big Eat App Download the Big Drink App The Big Drink 2014: 50 Cocktails to Try Before You Die The Big Eat 2014: 100 Things to Try Before You Die The 2012 Big To-Do SF: 100 Things To Do Before You Die The Big Veg 2011: 50 Vegetarian (Or Vegan) San Rafael is the perfect Bay Area getaway with plenty of outdoor activity options, a cute Things to Eat Before You Die downtown scene, and fascinating cultural attractions. The Big Sweet SF: 50 Treats to Eat Before You Die 50 Things to Do in Wine Country Before You Die Four Awesome Northern California Hot Springs Download the Big Eat App Download the Big Drink App The Big Drink 2014: 50 Cocktails to Try Before You Die The Big Eat 2014: 100 Things to Try Before You Die The 2012 Big To-Do SF: 100 Things To Do Before You Die The Big Veg 2011: 50 Vegetarian (Or Vegan) Things to Eat Before You Die The Big Sweet SF: 50 Treats to Eat Before You Die 9:00 a.m. – Wake up among crisp, soft, white sheets at Acqua Hotel, a boutique property located right on Richardson Bay in Mill Valley. Grab a cup of coffee and, while still 50 Things to Do in Wine Country Before You Die sporting your pajamas, walk out onto your terrace and enjoy the water view.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Coast Miwok and Their Neighbors, 1783-1840
    ETHNOHISTORY AND ETHNOGEOGRAPHY OF THE COAST MIWOK AND THEIR NEIGHBORS, 1783-1840 by Randall Milliken Technical Paper presented to: National Park Service, Golden Gate NRA Cultural Resources and Museum Management Division Building 101, Fort Mason San Francisco, California Prepared by: Archaeological/Historical Consultants 609 Aileen Street Oakland, California 94609 June 2009 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents the locations of Spanish-contact period Coast Miwok regional and local communities in lands of present Marin and Sonoma counties, California. Furthermore, it documents previously unavailable information about those Coast Miwok communities as they struggled to survive and reform themselves within the context of the Franciscan missions between 1783 and 1840. Supplementary information is provided about neighboring Southern Pomo-speaking communities to the north during the same time period. The staff of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) commissioned this study of the early native people of the Marin Peninsula upon recommendation from the report’s author. He had found that he was amassing a large amount of new information about the early Coast Miwoks at Mission Dolores in San Francisco while he was conducting a GGNRA-funded study of the Ramaytush Ohlone-speaking peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula. The original scope of work for this study called for the analysis and synthesis of sources identifying the Coast Miwok tribal communities that inhabited GGNRA parklands in Marin County prior to Spanish colonization. In addition, it asked for the documentation of cultural ties between those earlier native people and the members of the present-day community of Coast Miwok. The geographic area studied here reaches far to the north of GGNRA lands on the Marin Peninsula to encompass all lands inhabited by Coast Miwoks, as well as lands inhabited by Pomos who intermarried with them at Mission San Rafael.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Demonstration Projects for Sea Level Rise Resiliency Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (Baywave) Marin County Department of Public Works
    First Steps to Address Sea Level Rise in Marin County Demonstration Projects on the Eastern Shoreline—Past, Present, and Future Marin County’s demonstration projects for sea level rise resiliency Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE) Marin County Department of Public Works June 2017 Credits This project was prepared with generous funding from the California State Coastal Conservancy’s Climate Ready Grant Program. Authored by: Roger Leventhal, P.E. Senior Engineer Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 304 San Rafael, CA 93913 (415) 473-3249 [email protected] Additional contributors: Marilyn Latta, California State Coastal Conservancy; Veronica Pearson and James Raives, Marin County Parks Technical Writer: Jack Curley Designer: Laura Lovett | By Design Editor: Mark Nichol Photo credits: Pg. 2, Top to bottom: China Camp marsh, Rene Rivers; Egret among oyster shell reefs, S. Kiriakopolos; Removing vegetation on Arambu Island, Richardson Bay Audubon Society Pg. 7: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pg. 9–10: CLE Engineering Pg. 11: Richardson Bay Audubon Society Pg. 12: County of Marin DPW Pg. 13: CLE Engineering Pg. 14: Rachel Kamman Pg. 15: S. Kiriakopolos Pg. 16: J. Poskazner Pg. 17: San Francisco Estuary Institute For more information about the county’s sea level rise efforts, visit: www.MarinSLR.org 1 What is a Demonstration Project? Demonstration projects are small-scale projects con- structed and monitored to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a design concept or new restoration approach intended for implementation on a much larger scale. Demonstration projects are constructed to provide essential information to engineers, scientists, builders, and the public, and to help inform and guide actions to be taken in Marin County or elsewhere in San Francisco Bay in the near future to address the threats posed by sea level rise.
    [Show full text]
  • Ater Resource Plan Functionally Equivalent Document
    S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 7 MARIN COUNTY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM Storm Water Resource Plan Functionally Equivalent Document prepared by This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Organization of Report ................................................................................................ 1-1 2. Organization, Coordination, Collaboration (Guidelines Section VI.B) ........................ 2-1 2.1 Stakeholder/Public Participation and Outreach Efforts ............................................... 2-1 2.1.1 MCSTOPPP Monthly Agency Staff Committee Meetings ..................................... 2-1 2.1.2 North Bay Watershed Association Board of Directors Meetings ............................ 2-2 2.1.3 MCSTOPPP Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meetings .................................. 2-2 2.1.4 MCSTOPPP Website ............................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 Required Decisions that Must be Made by Local, State or Federal Agencies ............. 2-3 2.3 Stormwater and Dry Weather Runoff Management Objectives .................................. 2-4 2.4 Relationships to Other Plans ........................................................................................ 2-4 2.4.1 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ................. 2-4 2.4.2 Other Plans ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]