DOCSLIB.ORG

Reference No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reference No MLK Regional Shoreline Bay Trail Gap (Doolittle Drive South) and Improvements Project Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration April 13, 2020 MLK Regional Shoreline Bay Trail Gap (Doolittle Drive South) and Improvements Project Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: East Bay Regional Parks District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605 Prepared by: GHD 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150 Santa Rosa, California 95407 April 2020 Table of Contents 1. Project Information .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Project Background and Need ........................................................................................ 1-2 1.3. Project Location .............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.4. Detailed Project Description ........................................................................................... 1-3 1.4.1. San Francisco Bay Trail Gap Closure and Existing Bay Trail Improvements 1-3 1.4.2. Boat Launch Replacement ............................................................................ 1-4 1.4.3. Shoreline Protection ...................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.4. Parking Lot Improvements ............................................................................. 1-5 1.4.5. Guardrail Safety Barrier ................................................................................. 1-5 1.4.6. Modifications to Doolittle Drive ...................................................................... 1-5 1.4.7. Boat Ramp Removed .................................................................................... 1-6 1.4.8. Park Maintenance .......................................................................................... 1-6 1.4.9. Compensation for Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters ...................................... 1-6 1.4.10. Project Construction ...................................................................................... 1-6 1.5. Required Permits or Approvals ....................................................................................... 1-7 1.6. California Native American Tribe Consultation ............................................................... 1-8 2. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................................. 2-1 3. Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Agriculture and Forest Resources .................................................................................. 3-1 3.3. Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4. Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5. Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-24 3.6. Energy ........................................................................................................................... 3-28 3.7. Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 3-30 3.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... 3-34 3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 3-36 3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 3-39 3.11. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................. 3-44 3.12. Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-49 3.13. Noise ............................................................................................................................. 3-50 3.14. Population and Housing ................................................................................................ 3-55 3.15. Public Services ............................................................................................................. 3-56 3.16. Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 3-57 3.17. Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................... 3-58 MLK Regional Shoreline Bay Trail Gap and Improvements Project – IS/Proposed MND | Page i 3.18. Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 3-60 3.19. Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................... 3-62 3.20. Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 3-64 3.21. Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................. 3-65 4. References ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 Figure and Image Index Figure 1 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 1-9 Figure 2A Site Plan............................................................................................................................ 1-10 Figure 2B Site Plan............................................................................................................................ 1-11 Image 1a Existing View ....................................................................................................................... 3-2 Image 1b View with Proposed Project (Bay Trail and Guardrail) ........................................................ 3-3 Table Index Table 3.4-1: Predicted Underwater Distances to Adopted PTS Thresholds for Phocid Pinnipeds from Pile Driving ..................................................................................................................................... 3-14 Table 3.4-2: Estimated Distance (Meters) to dB Thresholds from Impact Pile Driving ..................... 3-15 Table 3.12-2: Construction Equipment 50-Foot Noise Emission Levels ........................................... 3-51 Table 3.12-1: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................ 3-53 Appendix Index Appendix A – Park Map Appendix B – Biological Resources Report MLK Regional Shoreline Bay Trail Gap and Improvements Project – IS/Proposed MND | Page ii 1. Project Information Project Title: MLK Regional Shoreline Bay Trail Gap (Doolittle Drive South) and Improvements Project Lead Agency Name & Address: East Bay Regional Parks District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605 Contact Person: Toby Perry, Project Manager Telephone: (510) 544-2317 Project Location: Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline City of Oakland, Alameda County California Project Sponsors: East Bay Regional Parks District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605 Project Assessor’s Parcel Number: 042-4404-001-00; 042-4410-001-13; and Caltrans Right-of-Way (State Highway 61) General Plan Designation: Resource Conservation Area Zoning: Open Space (majority, Doolittle Drive has no designation) Description of Project: Improvements to the existing Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline, including construction of a new Bay Trail segment, maintenance of existing Bay Trail, removal and replacement of boat launch, removal of boat ramp, and parking lot improvements. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: San Leandro Bay to the north, Oakland International Airport and industrial uses to the south and west, and greater Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline and industrial uses to the east. 1.1. Introduction The East Bay Regional Parks District (District) proposes to fill a gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) and make improvements within the existing Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Regional Shoreline. The MLK Regional Shoreline is a park within the District’s system of 73 parks, serving Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The District leases the site from the Port of Oakland. The MLK Regional Shoreline Bay Trail Gap (Doolittle Drive South) and Improvements Project (Project), is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The District is the CEQA Lead Agency. The purpose of this Initial Study is to: • Provide a basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration; • Disclose potential project environmental impacts; and MLK Regional Shoreline Bay Trail Gap and Improvements Project – IS/Proposed MND | Page 1-1 • Inform the CEQA Lead Agency, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin
    Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city.
    [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]
  • Battle on Many Fronts
    RISING REALITY The Risk The Embarcadero The Future The Shorelines Resources Battle on many fronts The Bay Area faces a common threat along its shores, but must meet it with an array of ambitious and creative responses By John King November 2016 Boardwalks along the edge of the Alviso Salt Marsh restoration project allow visitors to enjoy the surrounding area on the edge of San Francisco Bay in Alviso. Michael Macor, The Chronicle The levee that rings Oakland International Airport seemingly has nothing in common with the salt­crusted stretch of flat land alongside Menlo Park’s Bayfront Park. One is a 7­foot­high line of boulders, an engineered barrier between the tidal flows that surge in through the Golden Gate twice daily and the runways used by 10,000 commercial flights every month. The other is quiet desolation, a white void dotted with stagnant pools of water. Both, though, are examples of the Bay Area shoreline at risk from the long­term effects of sea level rise — and reminders that there’s no single way to prepare for what might lie ahead. RISINGThe REALITY correct remed yThe in someRisk areas The of Embarcadero shoreline will in vTheolv eFuture forms of naThetural Shorelines healing, wi thResources restored and managed marshes that provide habitat for wildlife and trails for people. But when major public investments or large residential communities are at risk, barriers might be needed to keep out water that wants to come in. It’s a future where now­isolated salt ponds near Silicon Valley would be reunited with the larger bay, while North Bay farmland is turned back into marshes.
    [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]
  • Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease And
    May 16, 2019 TO: Enforcement Committee Members FROM: Larry Goldzband, Executive Director, (415/352-3653; [email protected]) Marc Zeppetello, Chief Counsel, (415/352-3655; [email protected]) Karen Donovan, Attorney III, (415/352-3628; [email protected]) SUBJECT: Executive Director’s Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CDO 2019.001.00 Salt River Construction Corporation and Richard Moseley (For Committee consideration on May 16, 2019) Executive Director’s Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the Enforcement Committee adopt this Recommended Enforcement Decision including the proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CCD2019.001.00 (“Order”) to Salt River Construction Corporation and Richard Moseley (“SRCC”), for the reasons stated below. This matter arises out of an enforcement action commenced by BCDC staff in June of 2018 after BCDC received information from witnesses regarding the unauthorized activities. The matter was previously presented to the Enforcement Committee on February 21, 2019. After the Committee voted to recommend the adoption of the proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order, the Commission remanded the matter to the Committee on April 18, 2019, in order to allow Mr. Moseley to appear and present his position. Staff Report I. SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS A. Background Facts The Complaint alleges three separate violations. The first alleged violation occurred on property near Schoonmaker Point Marina, located in Richardson’s Bay in Marin County. On November 25, 2017, a San Francisco Baykeeper patrol boat operator witnessed a barge near Schoonmaker Marina being propelled by an excavator bucket.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Revegetation Program Installation Report and 201-201 Revegetation Plan
    SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT Revegetation Program Installation Report and 201-201 Revegetation Plan Create Report templates San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program DRAFT Year 4 (2014‐2015) Installation Report and Year 5 (2015‐2016) Revegetation Plan Prepared by Jeanne Hammond Olofson Environmental, Inc. 1830 Embarcadero Cove, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94606 For the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 January 26, 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Jeanne Hammond, the Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program Manager and incorporates the hard work done by other OEI biologists including Whitney Thornton, Jeffrey Lewis, Stephanie Chen, Nathan Deakers, Kevin Eng, Anastasia Ennis, Simon Gunner, Nina Hill, Penluck Laulikitnont, Jennifer McBroom, Monica Oey, Tobias Rohmer, Ilana Stein, Tripp McCandlish, as well as contributions from Ingrid Hogle and Drew Kerr. We would also like to thank our partners and contractors for all their hard work contracting, growing and planting including the California Wildlife Foundation, The Watershed Nursery, Shelterbelt, Inc., Hanford ARC, and Aquatic Environ‐ ments. This program would not be possible without the participation of our partner/landowners in‐ cluding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, East Bay Regional Park District, City of San Leandro, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, City of Alameda, City of Palo Alto, County of San Mateo Watershed Protection Services, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, and the Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This report was prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project with support and funding from the following contributors: California Coastal Conservancy California Wildlife Conservation Board (MOU #99‐054‐01 and subsequent) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Abundance and Distribution of Shorebirds in the San Francisco Bay Area
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 33, Number 2, 2002 ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHOREBIRDS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA LYNNE E. STENZEL, CATHERINE M. HICKEY, JANET E. KJELMYR, and GARY W. PAGE, Point ReyesBird Observatory,4990 ShorelineHighway, Stinson Beach, California 94970 ABSTRACT: On 13 comprehensivecensuses of the San Francisco-SanPablo Bay estuaryand associatedwetlands we counted325,000-396,000 shorebirds (Charadrii)from mid-Augustto mid-September(fall) and in November(early winter), 225,000 from late Januaryto February(late winter); and 589,000-932,000 in late April (spring).Twenty-three of the 38 speciesoccurred on all fall, earlywinter, and springcounts. Median counts in one or moreseasons exceeded 10,000 for 10 of the 23 species,were 1,000-10,000 for 4 of the species,and were less than 1,000 for 9 of the species.On risingtides, while tidal fiats were exposed,those fiats held the majorityof individualsof 12 speciesgroups (encompassing 19 species);salt ponds usuallyheld the majorityof 5 speciesgroups (encompassing 7 species); 1 specieswas primarilyon tidal fiatsand in other wetlandtypes. Most speciesgroups tended to concentratein greaterproportion, relative to the extent of tidal fiat, either in the geographiccenter of the estuaryor in the southernregions of the bay. Shorebirds' densitiesvaried among 14 divisionsof the unvegetatedtidal fiats. Most species groups occurredconsistently in higherdensities in someareas than in others;however, most tidalfiats held relativelyhigh densitiesfor at leastone speciesgroup in at leastone season.Areas supportingthe highesttotal shorebirddensities were also the ones supportinghighest total shorebird biomass, another measure of overallshorebird use. Tidalfiats distinguished most frequenfiy by highdensities or biomasswere on the east sideof centralSan FranciscoBay andadjacent to the activesalt ponds on the eastand southshores of southSan FranciscoBay and alongthe Napa River,which flowsinto San Pablo Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Mercury TMDL Report Mercury TMDL and Evaluate New Card Is in Preparation by the Water and Relevant Information from Board
    Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Summary Waterbody – The San Francisco Bay is located on the Central Coast of California. It is a broad and shallow natural embayment. The northern part of the Bay has more flushing than the southern portion because the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers discharge into the northern segment, while smaller, local watersheds provide freshwater to the southern part. Water Quality The northern and southern portions of the Bay are linked by the Central Bay, which provides the connection to the Pacific Ocean. Progress All segments of San Francisco Bay are included in this TMDL, including marine and estuarine waters adjacent to the Bay (Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta within San Francisco Bay region, Suisun Bay, Report Carquinez Strait, San Pablo Bay, Richardson Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, Lower San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay including the Lower South Bay) (see map below). Three additional mercury- impaired waterbodies that are specific areas within these larger segments are also included in this TMDL (Castro Cove, Oakland Inner Harbor, and San Leandro Bay). San Francisco Bay – Mercury (Approved 2008) WATER QUALITY STATUS ○ TMDL targets achieved ○ Conditions improving ● Improvement needed ○ Data inconclusive Contacts EPA: Luisa Valiela at (415) 972-3400 or [email protected] San Francisco Bay Water Board: Carrie Austin at (510) 622-1015 or [email protected] Segments of San Francisco Bay Last Updated 6/15/2015 Progress Report: Mercury in the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Goals Mercury water quality objectives were identified to protect both people who consume Bay fish and aquatic organisms and wildlife: To protect human health: Not to exceed 0.2 mg mercury per kg (mg/kg) (average wet weight of the edible portion) in trophic level1 (TL) 3 and 4 fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Estuary
    1 AA FrameworkFramework forfor CollaborativeCollaborative ActionAction onon WetlandsWetlands US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE etlands in the San Francisco Bay Area are range of interests—including resource and regulato- Wamong the most important coastal wintering ry agencies, environmental organizations, business, and migratory stopover areas for millions of water- and agriculture—convened the San Francisco Bay fowl and shorebirds traveling along the Pacific Fly- Joint Venture (SFBJV) in June of 1995. In September way, which stretches from Alaska to South America. 1996, 20 parties representing this diverse wetlands These wetlands also provide economic benefits, constituency signed a working agreement that iden- offer a range of recreational opportunities, and con- tified the goals and objectives of the SFBJV, and the tribute to a higher quality of life for residents in the responsibilities of its board and working commit- densely populated San Francisco Bay Area. They are tees. The agreement also stated that the Implemen- essential aspects of the Bay region’s unique charac- tation Strategy would be developed to guide its par- ter and, along with the creeks that flow into the Bay, ties toward the long-term vision of the restored Bay help to define the vibrant and distinctive identities Estuary. The signatory partners recognized and of communities around the Bay. However, despite endorsed the goals of the North American Waterfowl their value, destruction of these precious natural Management Plan. However, they enlarged the goals assets continues. Today’s wetlands are only a rem- and objectives of the Plan to include benefits not nant, perhaps 20 percent of the vast wetlands seen only for waterfowl, but also for the other wildlife by the first European settlers.
    [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]