DOCSLIB.ORG

Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Impact Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Impact Report SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BOULEVARD REHABILITATION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER 2008112004 January 2011 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BOULEVARD REHABILITATION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # 2008112004 Submitted to: Marin County Department of Public Works 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, California 94903 Contact: Mr. Dave Bernardi (415) 499-6530 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project No. BKF0902 January 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR..................................................................................................1 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION .....................................................................................................1 1.3 CONTENTS OF THE EIR...............................................................................................2 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS..........................................................................3 1.5 EIR PROCESS.................................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 2.0 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................5 2.1 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................5 2.2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ..................5 2.3 SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS.......................................................5 2.4 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................................................................6 2.5 SUMMARY OF PLAN AND POLICY CONSISTENCY ...............................................8 2.6 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT............................................................9 2.7 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ............................................................9 2.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY .......................................................................................10 2.9 SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS...................................................................11 2.10 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED .........................................................................................12 2.11 SUMMARY TABLE OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS .........................................13 CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................59 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND...........................................................................................59 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................................59 3.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................................59 3.4 PROPOSED PROJECT...................................................................................................73 3.5 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS.................................................................96 CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS .............................................................99 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY.....................................................................101 4.2 AESTHETICS...............................................................................................................133 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................150 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................217 4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS..............................................................................................235 4.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..................................................................252 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.........................................................273 4.8 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION.................................................................................282 4.9 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................295 4.10 NOISE...........................................................................................................................311 4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES .......................................................................320 4.12 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................331 CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................345 5.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................346 5.2 RESURFACE ROADWAY ALTERNATIVE .............................................................349 5.3 MITIGATED ROADWAY ALTERNATIVE ..............................................................351 5.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION .................................................................................................................352 5.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE..............................................353 CHAPTER 6.0 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ...........................................355 P:\BKF0902\EIR\Final EIR\SFDB_Final EIR.doc (01/09/11) i 6.1 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ..............................................................................355 6.2 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..........................355 6.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES.............................................................355 6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..........................................................................................356 6.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT........................................................362 CHAPTER 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION .......................................................................................365 7.1 REPORT PREPARERS ................................................................................................365 7.2 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................366 7.3 COMMUNICATIONS..................................................................................................374 CHAPTER 8.0 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................375 8.1 ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................375 8.2 GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................378 APPENDICES A: SUMMARY TABLE OF PUBLIC COMMENTS B: NOTICE OF PREPARATION C: COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION D: TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION E: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT F: TREE INVENTORY G: AIR QUALITY MODELING H: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT I: SLOPE INSTABILITY PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL MEMORANDUM P:\BKF0902\EIR\Final EIR\SFDB_Final EIR.doc (01/09/11) ii FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 3.1-1: Project Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................61 Figure 3.3-1: Project Location Map .....................................................................................................63 Figure 3.3-2: Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................65 Figure 3.3-3: Existing Drainage Structures ..........................................................................................69 Figure 3.3-4: Pavement Conditions......................................................................................................71 Figure 3.4-1: Drainage Improvement Illustrations...............................................................................75 Figure 3.4-2: Pullout Improvements.....................................................................................................78 Figure 3.4-3: Slope Repair ...................................................................................................................81 Figure 3.4-4: Visual Simulations of Slope Repair................................................................................83 Figure 3.4-5: Additional Project Improvements...................................................................................85 Figure 3.4-6: Retaining Wall Improvements........................................................................................87 Figure 3.4-7: Visual Simulation of Low Retaining Wall .....................................................................89 Figure 3.4-8: Option A Improvements .................................................................................................93 Figure 4.1-1: Land Use Designations.................................................................................................103 Figure 4.2-1: Project Site and Topography ........................................................................................135 Figure 4.2-2: Tree Removal for Slope Repair ....................................................................................143 Figure 4.2-3: Tree Removal for Option A..........................................................................................145
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park
    19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450 ■ 707.847.3437 ■ [email protected] ■ www.fortross.org Title: Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park Author(s): Dorothy Scherer Published by: California Native Plant Society i Source: Fort Ross Conservancy Library URL: www.fortross.org Fort Ross Conservancy (FRC) asks that you acknowledge FRC as the source of the content; if you use material from FRC online, we request that you link directly to the URL provided. If you use the content offline, we ask that you credit the source as follows: “Courtesy of Fort Ross Conservancy, www.fortross.org.” Fort Ross Conservancy, a 501(c)(3) and California State Park cooperating association, connects people to the history and beauty of Fort Ross and Salt Point State Parks. © Fort Ross Conservancy, 19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450, 707-847-3437 .~ ) VASCULAR PLANTS of FORT ROSS STATE HISTORIC PARK SONOMA COUNTY A PLANT COMMUNITIES PROJECT DOROTHY KING YOUNG CHAPTER CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DOROTHY SCHERER, CHAIRPERSON DECEMBER 30, 1999 ) Vascular Plants of Fort Ross State Historic Park August 18, 2000 Family Botanical Name Common Name Plant Habitat Listed/ Community Comments Ferns & Fern Allies: Azollaceae/Mosquito Fern Azo/la filiculoides Mosquito Fern wp Blechnaceae/Deer Fern Blechnum spicant Deer Fern RV mp,sp Woodwardia fimbriata Giant Chain Fern RV wp Oennstaedtiaceae/Bracken Fern Pleridium aquilinum var. pubescens Bracken, Brake CG,CC,CF mh T Oryopteridaceae/Wood Fern Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Western lady Fern RV sp,wp Dryopteris arguta Coastal Wood Fern OS op,st Dryopteris expansa Spreading Wood Fern RV sp,wp Polystichum munitum Western Sword Fern CF mh,mp Equisetaceae/Horsetail Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail RV ds,mp Equisetum hyemale ssp.affine Common Scouring Rush RV mp,sg Equisetum laevigatum Smooth Scouring Rush mp,sg Equisetum telmateia ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Could Francis Drake Have Found San Francisco Bay?
    Could Francis Drake Have Found San Francisco Bay? Sir Francis Drake By Duane Van Dieman FRANCIS DRAKE; A BRIEF BACKGROUND In the most remarkable known event in pre-California history, Captain Francis Drake and his crew landed in what is now Marin County in the summer of 1579, staying for 36 days while careening their ship, "The Golden Hinde", and peacefully mingling with the natives. Drake and his crew of about 75 men were Northern California’s first European visitors. Although Francis Drake was the most famous of all Elizabethan “seadogs”, little is known by most people living in the Bay Area about the man and the voyage that brought him to the shores of California. The nearly three-year adventure originated with five ships in Plymouth, England in December of 1577. By the summer of 1579, Drake and his crew aboard the only remaining ship of the voyage had amassed great quantities of booty by attacking Spanish treasure ports and merchant ships while sailing north along the west coast of South and Central America. During those surprise raids, Drake reportedly relieved a Spanish treasure ship, commonly known as “The Cacafuego”, of some 28 tons of silver and other valuables. After sailing as far north as the Vancouver area, looking for the mythical “Straights of Anian” (or “Northwest Passage”) as a possible way back to England, Drake and company sailed back down the coast to find a safe harbor in or near what is now Marin County. Over 40 tons of silver, along with gold, jewels and other treasures were aboard Drake’s ship when they landed for repairs and built an encampment for their five-week stay.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Design Documentation
    Appendix A: Conceptual Design Documentation APPENDIX A Conceptual Design Documentation June 2019 A-1 APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DOCUMENTATION The environmental analyses in the NEPA and CEQA documents for the proposed improvements at Oceano County Airport (the Airport) are based on conceptual designs prepared to provide a realistic basis for assessing their environmental consequences. 1. Widen runway from 50 to 60 feet 2. Widen Taxiways A, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 from 20 to 25 feet 3. Relocate segmented circle and wind cone 4. Installation of taxiway edge lighting 5. Installation of hold position signage 6. Installation of a new electrical vault and connections 7. Installation of a pollution control facility (wash rack) CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS The purpose of this conceptual design effort is to identify the amount of impervious surface, grading (cut and fill) and drainage implications of the projects identified above. The conceptual design calculations detailed in the following figures indicate that Projects 1 and 2, widening the runways and taxiways would increase the total amount of impervious surface on the Airport by 32,016 square feet, or 0.73 acres; a 6.6 percent increase in the Airport’s impervious surface area. Drainage patterns would remain the same as both the runway and taxiways would continue to sheet flow from their centerlines to the edge of pavement and then into open, grassed areas. The existing drainage system is able to accommodate the modest increase in stormwater runoff that would occur, particularly as soil conditions on the Airport are conducive to infiltration. Figure A-1 shows the locations of the seven projects incorporated in the Proposed Action.
    [Show full text]
  • A Self--Guided Tour
    SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY A SELF--GUIDED TOUR School of Social Sciences SONOMA- Department of Environmental Studies and Planning STATE UNIVERSITY . A self-guided tour Written by: Kenneth M. Stocking Professor ·Emeritus, Environmental Studies and Planning Robert J. Sherman, Professor of Biology Karen Tillinghast, Lead Gardener, Landscape Services 1st Revision, 1997, by Brian King and Karen Tillinghast 2nd Revision, 2006, by Katherine Musick and Karen Tillinghast ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Our appreciation and thanks to the students, staff, and faculty from Environmental Studies and Planning and Biology who have contributed in many ways toward the development of the garden. Introduction ....................................................... iv Concept of the Garden . ...................... iv Special thanks to the following: Layout of the Garden. v John Bond, Director of Plant Operations, Retired A. Oak Woodland. 1 William Mabry, Director of Plant Operations, Retired B. Yellow Pine Forest ............. ................................. 4 George Smith, Superintendent of Grounds, Retired C. Douglas-Fir Forest .................... ...... ..................... 7 Sam Youney, Superintendent of Grounds D. Mixed Evergreen. 8 E. Grassland ...................................................... 10 Organizations that have contributed time, effort, and plant specimens include: F. Chaparral . 12 California Flora Nursery G. Redwood Forest ................................................ 15 California Native Plant Society, Milo Baker Chapter H.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogénie Et Évolution Du Genre Frankia Imen Nouioui
    Phylogénie et évolution du genre Frankia Imen Nouioui To cite this version: Imen Nouioui. Phylogénie et évolution du genre Frankia. Biologie végétale. Université Claude Bernard - Lyon I, 2014. Français. NNT : 2014LYO10087. tel-01089349 HAL Id: tel-01089349 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01089349 Submitted on 1 Dec 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. N° d’ordre 87 – 2014 Année 2014 THÈSE DE L’UNIVERSITE DE LYON Délivrée par L’UNIVERSITE CLAUDE BERNARD LYON 1 ECOLE DOCTORALE : Evolution Ecosystèmes Microbiologie Modélisation DIPLOME DE DOCTORAT (arrêté du 7 Août 2006) Soutenue publiquement le 23 juin 2014 par Melle Imen NOUIOUI Phylogénie et Évolution du genre Frankia Directeurs de thèse : Maria P. FERNANDEZ & Maher GTARI Jury : M. Abdellatif Boudabous Professeur à l’Université Tunis El Manar Président M. Ridha Mhamdi Professeur au Centre de Biotechnologie de Borj Cédria Rapporteur M. Sergio Svistoonoff Chargé de recherche à l’IRD, Montpellier Rapporteur M. Maher Gtari Professeur à l’Université de Carthage Examinateur Mme. Maria
    [Show full text]
  • TELOPEA Publication Date: 13 October 1983 Til
    Volume 2(4): 425–452 TELOPEA Publication Date: 13 October 1983 Til. Ro)'al BOTANIC GARDENS dx.doi.org/10.7751/telopea19834408 Journal of Plant Systematics 6 DOPII(liPi Tmst plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/Telopea • escholarship.usyd.edu.au/journals/index.php/TEL· ISSN 0312-9764 (Print) • ISSN 2200-4025 (Online) Telopea 2(4): 425-452, Fig. 1 (1983) 425 CURRENT ANATOMICAL RESEARCH IN LILIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE AND IRIDACEAE* D.F. CUTLER AND MARY GREGORY (Accepted for publication 20.9.1982) ABSTRACT Cutler, D.F. and Gregory, Mary (Jodrell(Jodrel/ Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England) 1983. Current anatomical research in Liliaceae, Amaryllidaceae and Iridaceae. Telopea 2(4): 425-452, Fig.1-An annotated bibliography is presented covering literature over the period 1968 to date. Recent research is described and areas of future work are discussed. INTRODUCTION In this article, the literature for the past twelve or so years is recorded on the anatomy of Liliaceae, AmarylIidaceae and Iridaceae and the smaller, related families, Alliaceae, Haemodoraceae, Hypoxidaceae, Ruscaceae, Smilacaceae and Trilliaceae. Subjects covered range from embryology, vegetative and floral anatomy to seed anatomy. A format is used in which references are arranged alphabetically, numbered and annotated, so that the reader can rapidly obtain an idea of the range and contents of papers on subjects of particular interest to him. The main research trends have been identified, classified, and check lists compiled for the major headings. Current systematic anatomy on the 'Anatomy of the Monocotyledons' series is reported. Comment is made on areas of research which might prove to be of future significance.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT OAEC NATIVE PLANT LIST FERNS and FERN ALLIES
    DRAFT OAEC NATIVE PLANT LIST FERNS and FERN ALLIES: Blechnaceae: Deer Fern Family Giant Chain Fern Woodwardia fimbriata Dennstaedtiaceae: Bracken Fern Bracken Pteridium aquilinum Dryopteridaceae: Wood Fern Family Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina Wood Fern Dryopteris argutanitum Western Sword Fern Polystichum muitum Polypodiaceae: Polypody Family California Polypody Polypodium californicum Pteridaceae: Brake Family California Maiden-Hair Adiantum jordanii Coffee Fern Pellaea andromedifolia Goldback Fern Pentagramma triangularis Isotaceae: Quillwort Family Isoetes sp? Nuttallii? Selaginellaceae: Spike-Moss Family Selaginella bigelovii GYMNOPSPERMS Pinaceae: Pine Family Douglas-Fir Psuedotsuga menziesii Taxodiaceae: Bald Cypress Family Redwood Sequoia sempervirens ANGIOSPERMS: DICOTS Aceraceae: Maple Family Big-Leaf Maple Acer macrophyllum Box Elder Acer negundo Anacardiaceae: Sumac Family Western Poison Oak Toxicodendron diversilobum Apiaceae: Carrot Family Lomatium( utriculatum) or (carulifolium)? Pepper Grass Perideridia kelloggii Yampah Perideridia gairdneri Sanicula sp? Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza chilensis Unidentified in forest at barn/deer fence gate Angelica Angelica tomentosa Apocynaceae: Dogbane or Indian Hemp Family Apocynum cannabinum Aristolochiaceae Dutchman’s Pipe, Pipevine Aristolochia californica Wild Ginger Asarum caudatum Asteraceae: Sunflower Family Grand Mountain Dandelion Agoseris grandiflora Broad-leaved Aster Aster radulinus Coyote Brush Baccharis pilularis Pearly Everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea Woodland Tarweed Madia
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F.7
    APPENDIX F.7 Biological Evaluation Appendix F.7 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project Biological Evaluation March 2019 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviewed and Approved by: USDA Forest Service BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This page intentionally left blank BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 1 PRE-FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................... 4 SPECIES IMPACT DETERMINATION SUMMARY .......................................................... 5 DETAILED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON SPECIES CONSIDERED ............ 25 6.1 Global Discussion ........................................................................................................ 25 6.1.1 Analysis Areas and Current Environment ............................................................. 25 6.1.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 33 6.1.3 Conservation Measures and Mitigation ................................................................. 62 6.2 Species Accounts and Analysis of Impacts ................................................................. 63 6.2.1 Mammals ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Adenostoma Fasciculatum (Chamise), Arctostaphylos Canescens (Hoary Manzanita), and Arctostaphylos Virgata (Marin Manzanita) Alison S
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects 5-20-2016 Preserving Biodiversity for a Climate Change Future: A Resilience Assessment of Three Bay Area Species--Adenostoma fasciculatum (Chamise), Arctostaphylos canescens (Hoary Manzanita), and Arctostaphylos virgata (Marin Manzanita) Alison S. Pollack University of San Francisco, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Biology Commons, Botany Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Pollack, Alison S., "Preserving Biodiversity for a Climate Change Future: A Resilience Assessment of Three Bay Area Species-- Adenostoma fasciculatum (Chamise), Arctostaphylos canescens (Hoary Manzanita), and Arctostaphylos virgata (Marin Manzanita)" (2016). Master's Projects and Capstones. 352. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/352 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 This Master's Project Preserving Biodiversity for a Climate Change Future: A Resilience Assessment of Three Bay Area Species--Adenostoma fasciculatum (Chamise), Arctostaphylos canescens (Hoary Manzanita), and Arctostaphylos virgata (Marin Manzanita) by Alison S. Pollack is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Science in Environmental Management at the University of San Francisco Submitted: Received: ................................………….
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    INTRODUCTION Although much of the San Francisco Bay Region is densely populated and industrialized, many thousands of acres within its confines have been set aside as parks and preserves. Most of these tracts were not rescued until after they had been altered. The construction of roads, the modification of drainage patterns, grazing by livestock, and the introduction of aggressive species are just a few of the factors that have initiated irreversible changes in the region’s plant and animal life. Yet on the slopes of Mount Diablo and Mount Tamal- pais, in the redwood groves at Muir Woods, and in some of the regional parks one can find habitats that probably resemble those that were present two hundred years ago. Even tracts that are far from pristine have much that will bring pleasure to those who enjoy the study of nature. Visitors to our region soon discover that the area is diverse in topography, geology, cli- mate, and vegetation. Hills, valleys, wetlands, and the seacoast are just some of the situa- tions that will have one or more well-defined assemblages of plants. In this manual, the San Francisco Bay Region is defined as those counties that touch San Francisco Bay. Reading a map clockwise from Marin County, they are Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. This book will also be useful in bordering counties, such as Mendocino, Lake, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito, because many of the plants dealt with occur farther north, east, and south. For example, this book includes about three-quarters of the plants found in Monterey County and about half of the Mendocino flora.
    [Show full text]
  • North Coaster
    North Coaster Writing — Photography — Marin and Sonoma Coast Travel Directory North Coaster A journal for travelers along the Marin and Sonoma coasts The Greater Horror by Thomas Broderick Page 3 Bird identification made easy by Samantha KimmeyPage 5 Beach day by Jordan Bowen Page 7 Tule elk lament by Jim Pelligrin Page 7 The word by Samantha Kimmey Page 8 Ain’t misbehavin’ by Scott McMorrow Page 9 The new you by Samantha Kimmey Page 10 Travel directory Page 19 Print by Miguel Kuntz Page 21 Photographs by David Briggs Edited by Tess Elliott Published by the Point Reyes Light, LLC Box 210, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 (415) 669.1200 ptreyeslight.com The greater horror By Thomas Broderick Last year, I had the pleasure of spotting Tippi Hedren, star of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 film “The Birds,” signing autographs at The Tides restaurant in Bodega Bay. She was my second celebrity encounter since moving back to Northern California last year, the first being a certain celebrity chef cutting me off on Highway 12. I later learned that Ms. Hedren’s appearance is an annual tradition, and that some of the money she makes from it goes to support her extensive charity work. Though I’ve never seen the film in its entirety, I learned the story through multiple trips to the restaurant and the Saint Teresa of Avila Church in Bodega. Even I, who spent the majority of my life in Middle Tennessee, feel local pride knowing these beautiful places are immortalized in such a loved and influential film.
    [Show full text]