DOCSLIB.ORG

SAN FRANCISCO MARINA RENOVATION PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SAN FRANCISCO MARINA RENOVATION PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2002.1129E State Clearing House No. 2003122131 Draft EIR Publication Date: September 6, 2005 Draft EIR Public Hearing Dates: October 6, 2005 and January 12, 2006 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: September 6, 2005 – January 20, 2006 Final EIR Certification Date: January 11, 2007 DEFINITIONS Some of the terms used in this document may be unfamiliar to readers. This list of definitions is provided to orient readers to the terms used to describe common features of marinas and waterfront developments that are integral to the project. Please refer to this list as necessary when reviewing the attached Environmental Impact Report. Bow: The front of a boat. Breakwater: A barrier that protects a harbor or shore from the full impact of waves. Dock: A platform that forms the space for receiving or mooring a boat. Fill: The Bay Conservation and Development Commission defines fill as “earth or any other substance or material, including pilings or structures placed on pilings, and structures floating at some or all times and moored for extended periods, such as houseboats and floating docks.” Float: A pier that floats on top of the water, with guide piles driven as needed to maintain its location. Gangway: A bridge for getting to and from floats and docks from the shore. Jetty: A structure, such as a pier, that projects into a body of water to influence the current or tide or to protect a harbor or shoreline from storms or erosion. Mole: A solid fill barrier that protects a harbor or shore from the full impact of waves, similar to a breakwater. Pier: A pile-supported structure over water that extends out from the seawall. Pile or piling: A long, slender column, usually of timber, steel, or reinforced concrete, that is driven into the ground to carry a vertical load. Piers and floating docks are typically supported or secured by pilings. Pilings were historically made of timber and coated with creosote (a distillation of coal tar), a substance that promoted longevity. As creosote is now known to be a contaminant, the Port of San Francisco and several state and federal regulatory agencies require the use of concrete, steel, or pressure-treated wood pilings. Revetment: A facing of wood, stone, or any other material placed to sustain an embankment when it receives a slope steeper than the natural slope; also, a retaining wall. Riprap: A loose assemblage of broken stones erected in water or on soft ground as a foundation. Seawall: A retaining wall that separates land from a body of water. Stern: The rear of a boat. SAN FRANCISCO MARINA RENOVATION PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2002.1129E State Clearing House No. 2003122131 Draft EIR Publication Date: September 6, 2005 Draft EIR Public Hearing Dates: October 6, 2005 and January 12, 2006 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: September 6, 2005 – January 20, 2006 Final EIR Certification Date: January 11, 2007 Changes from the Draft EIR text are indicated by a dot ( z ) in the left margin (adjacent to the page number for figures). This document is printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS SAN FRANCISCO MARINA RENOVATION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page S. SUMMARY A. Project Description ................................................................................................... S-1 B. Main Environmental Effects..................................................................................... S-4 C. Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved ................................................... S-17 D. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... S-18 E. Improvement Measure ............................................................................................ S-22 F. Mitigation Measures from Initial Study.................................................................. S-23 G. Improvement Measures from the Initial Study ....................................................... S-26 H. Alternatives to the Proposed Project....................................................................... S-27 I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................I-1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Site Location.............................................................................................................II-1 B. Project Characteristics..............................................................................................II-5 C. Project Sponsor’s Objectives ..................................................................................II-12 D. Approvals Required................................................................................................II-14 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS A. Land Use, Plans, and Policies............................................................................. III.A-1 B. Visual and Aesthetic Resources...........................................................................III.B-1 C. Historic Resources ...............................................................................................III.C-1 D. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity ........................................................................... III.D-1 E. Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................III.E-1 F. Hazardous Materials and Waste........................................................................... III.F-1 IV. MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES A. Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR............................................................... IV-2 B. Mitigation and Improvement Measures from the Initial Study ................................ IV-6 V. OTHER CEQA TOPICS A. Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided If the Proposed Project Is Implemented ............................................................................................................ V-1 B. Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................ V-1 C. Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved .................................................... V-2 Case No. 2002.1129E i San Francisco Marina Renovation Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. No Project............................................................................................................... VI-1 B. No New West Harbor Breakwaters......................................................................... VI-3 C. West Harbor Renovation Only................................................................................ VI-5 D. Removal of the Former Degaussing Station and Expansion of the Harbor Office.. VI-7 VII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST........................................................................VII-1 z VIII. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .............................................C&R-1 z IX. EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS A. EIR Authors............................................................................................................ IX-1 B. EIR Consultants...................................................................................................... IX-1 C. Project Sponsor....................................................................................................... IX-2 z X. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. X-1 z XI. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. XI-1 A. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study ................................................................... A-1 B. East Harbor Design Guidelines.................................................................................B-1 C. Moffatt & Nichol Engineering, San Francisco Marina Renovation Project Breakwater Improvement Study ...............................................................................C-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Project Location..............................................................................................................II-2 2. Existing Site Plan............................................................................................................II-4 3. Proposed Site Plan...........................................................................................................II-7 4. Viewpoint Locations..................................................................................................III.B-5 5. Existing and Proposed Views from Viewpoint Location 1 ........................................III.B-6 6. Existing and Proposed Views from Viewpoint Location 2 ........................................III.B-9 7. Existing and Proposed Views from Viewpoint Location 3 ......................................III.B-10 8. Existing and Proposed Views from Viewpoint Location 4 ......................................III.B-11 9. Existing and Proposed Views from Viewpoint Location 5 ......................................III.B-14 10. Existing and Proposed Views from Viewpoint Location 6 ......................................III.B-15 11. Approximate Seawall Alignments............................................................................. III.D-2 12. Seismic Hazard Zones..............................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • San Francisco, California

    San Francisco, California

    updated: 10.18.2017 Compressed Area - 4.5 Miles 2.5 Miles B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R Fort Point Blue & Gold Blue & Gold San Francisco Bay Red & Fleet to Fleet to Vallejo, 1 Cable Car Route Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco, California USA White Fleet Angel Island Jack London Square 1 (toll south bound) San Francisco Bay Cruise Sausalito & & Oakland Street Car (F-Line) Maritime Tiburon & Bay Cruise Golden Gate National Recreation Area Alcatraz Ferry Service MasonCrissy St Field National PIER Historical Park 45 43 41 39 One Way Traffic 47 431/2 Pre Marina Green s Hyde St id l io Aquatic End of One Way Traffic l Pa rkwa Marina Blvd Pier d y e Park Blue & Gold v l Cervantes Blvd Direction of w Lin Jefferson St Ferry Pier 35 o B co MARINA Fort Mason The Highway Ramps Cruise Terminal D l The Walt n n Cannery Anchorage 2 l E 2 c m 33 Disney FISHERMANS Photo Vantage Points o B ba M c Family Palace Beach St Beach St r l c v n Museum Ghirardelli a & Scenic Views i WHARF d Baker d of Fine Arts L (Main Post) GGNRA Square e North Point St ro 31 BART Station Beach North Point St Headquarters t Shopping Area S Bay St Bay St Bay St Pier 27 a Alcatraz Departure Terminal Parks br James R. Herman m Cruise Terminal R Alha Moscone Francisco St Francisco St 3 Beaches Letterman i Lincoln Blvd c 3 h Rec Ctr THE Veterans Blvd Digital Arts a Chestnut St Points of Interest Center Aver Chestnut St TELEGRAPH EMBARCADERO ds “Crookedest HILL o Hospitals n d Lombard St Gen.
  • Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (2012)

    Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (2012)

    FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee Federal Geographic Data Committee June, 2012 Federal Geographic Data Committee FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard, June 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Need ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Application ............................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Relationship to Previous FGDC Standards .............................................................. 4 1.6 Development Procedures ......................................................................................... 5 1.7 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 Build a Scientifically Sound Ecological Classification .................................... 7 1.7.2 Meet the Needs of a Wide Range of Users ......................................................
  • Northern Station Newsletter

    Northern Station Newsletter

    Northern Station Newsletter sa nfranciscopol ice. org Sun Francisco -•• - ];''1 Police Deportment (IIII11111111 1U['Di '•- IL' Captain Joe Engler's Message Residents, Merchants, and Visitors, Active and ongoing communication between law enforcement and community members is a key feature of "community policing" and a critical ingredient in the effectiveness of your officers at Northern Police Station. The Northern District embraces a strategy using foot-beat officers in the several commercial corridors of its neighborhoods. Foot patrols cast our officers in the most traditional of police roles. These officers are in direct contact with the public at almost all times and are in the best position to learn about the neighborhood's problems and the path to real solutions. Captain Joseph Eng!er Currently, the following listed officers are contributing to our safe streets and neighborhoods by walking a foot-beat. Officer Matt Horn is the new Hayes Valley/Haight Street beat. Officers Paul Wilgus and Cliff Burkhart walk the beat in Japantown and the Upper Fillmore. Officer Brian Donohue and Calvinn Wang are adept problem solvers in the Lower Polk Street corridor. Officer Nate Bernard peddles the hills and alley ways in the Upper Polk Street neighborhood. Officer Stephen Horn has endeared himself to the Union Street merchants and residents as he returns to his Cow Hollow beat. Sibling Officers Shyrle and Nico Hawes have signed up for the Divisadero Street and Chestnut Street foot beats and will be working closely with businesses to abate the recent spate in shoplifting and car break-ins. Officers Dennis Cesena and Mike Chantal will continue their foot beat duties around the Civic Center and City Hall footprint.
  • Fort Mason Extension SPUR Preso 101911

    Fort Mason Extension SPUR Preso 101911

    Extending Success: Streetcars to Ft. Mason Rick Laubscher, Doug Wright, Rich Hillis SPUR, October 19, 2011 Historic Streetcars: Huge SF Success ! “Trolley Festival” started Trolley Festival, 1983 momentum 28 years ago ! Used Market St. surface track ! Chamber-City joint project ! Mayor Feinstein was champion ! Community support led to: ⊕" 5-summer run ⊕" Adoption of permanent F-line F-line, Pier 39, 2000 ! F-line open 1995; to Wharf 2000 ! Today: 23,000+ daily riders ⊕" Most popular vintage line in U.S. ⊕" Service increased to meet demand ⊕" Still more service needed Rail’s Role: Commerce, Commuters, Defense Ferry Bldg. 1927 ! Waterfront rail – 1900-c.1960s ⊕" State Belt freight RR served piers ⊕" Supplies, troops carried to Fort Mason & Presidio on Army track ⊕" 25 streetcar lines served waterfront ♦"World’s 2nd busiest transit hub ! Maritime & defense evolved ⊕" Waterfront’s face changed forever ⊕" Today: recreation, visitor oriented Troop Train at Crissy Field 1941 Fort Mason Streetcar History ! Muni’s H-line served Fort Mason 1914-1948 Fort Mason Streetcar Revival ! Historic waterfront streetcar line repeatedly proposed ⊕" 1970: San Francisco Tomorrow suggests waterfront route ⊕" 1979: First Muni Embarcadero streetcar proposal included in plan ⊕" 1980: GGNRA General Management Plan proposes historic streetcar shuttle from Aquatic Park to Crissy Field ⊕" 1985: I-280 Transfer Study evaluates Caltrain-Fort Mason route ⊕" 2000: F-line extension opens to Wharf ⊕" 2001: Fort Mason Center, Fisherman’s Wharf Merchants, Market Street Railway
  • Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook

    Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook

    TENNESSEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK A Stormwater Planning and Design Manual for Construction Activities Fourth Edition AUGUST 2012 Acknowledgements This handbook has been prepared by the Division of Water Resources, (formerly the Division of Water Pollution Control), of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Many resources were consulted during the development of this handbook, and when possible, permission has been granted to reproduce the information. Any omission is unintentional, and should be brought to the attention of the Division. We are very grateful to the following agencies and organizations for their direct and indirect contributions to the development of this handbook: TDEC Environmental Field Office staff Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage University of Tennessee, Tennessee Water Resources Research Center University of Tennessee, Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Georgia Department of Natural Resources California Stormwater Quality Association ~ ii ~ Preface Disturbed soil, if not managed properly, can be washed off-site during storms. Unless proper erosion prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used for construction activities, silt transport to a local waterbody is likely. Excessive silt causes adverse impacts due to biological alterations, reduced passage in rivers and streams, higher drinking water treatment costs for removing the sediment, and the alteration of water’s physical/chemical properties, resulting in degradation of its quality. This degradation process is known as “siltation”. Silt is one of the most frequently cited pollutants in Tennessee waterways. The division has experimented with multiple ways to determine if a stream, river, or reservoir is impaired due to silt.
  • 100 Things to Do in San Francisco*

    100 Things to Do in San Francisco*

    100 Things to Do in San Francisco* Explore Your New Campus & City MORNING 1. Wake up early and watch the sunrise from the top of Bernal Hill. (Bernal Heights) 2. Uncover antique treasures and designer deals at the Treasure Island Flea Market. (Treasure Island) 3. Go trail running in Glen Canyon Park. (Glen Park) 4. Swim in Aquatic Park. (Fisherman's Wharf) 5. Take visitors to Fort Point at the base of the Golden Gate Bridge, where Kim Novak attempted suicide in Hitchcock's Vertigo. (Marina) 6. Get Zen on Sundays with free yoga classes in Dolores Park. (Dolores Park) 7. Bring Your Own Big Wheel on Easter Sunday. (Potrero Hill) 8. Play tennis at the Alice Marble tennis courts. (Russian Hill) 9. Sip a cappuccino on the sidewalk while the cable car cruises by at Nook. (Nob Hill) 10. Take in the views from seldom-visited Ina Coolbrith Park and listen to the sounds of North Beach below. (Nob Hill) 11. Brave the line at the Swan Oyster Depot for fresh seafood. (Nob Hill) *Adapted from 7x7.com 12. Drive down one of the steepest streets in town - either 22nd between Vicksburg and Church (Noe Valley) or Filbert between Leavenworth and Hyde (Russian Hill). 13. Nosh on some goodies at Noe Valley Bakery then shop along 24th Street. (Noe Valley) 14. Play a round of 9 or 18 at the Presidio Golf Course. (Presidio) 15. Hike around Angel Island in spring when the wildflowers are blooming. 16. Dress up in a crazy costume and run or walk Bay to Breakers.
  • San Francisco, California

    San Francisco, California

    Compressed Area - 4.5 Miles 2.5 Miles B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R Blue & Gold Golden Gate Fort Point Blue & Gold San Francisco Bay Red & Fleet to Fleet to Vallejo, Cable Car Route Bridge White Fleet Angel Island Jack London Square 1 San Francisco, California USA San Francisco Bay Cruise & Oakland 1 (toll south Sausalito & and Bay Cruise Street Car (F-Line) bound) Maritime Tiburon Golden Gate National Recreation Area Alcatraz Ferry Service MasonCrissy St Field National PIER Historical Park 45 43 41 39 One Way Traffic 47 431/2 Pre Marina Green s Hyde St id l io Aquatic 35 End of One Way Traffic l Pa rkwa Marina Blvd Pier d y e Lin Park v co l Cervantes Blvd Cruise Ship w Direction of The Walt l o n B MARINA Fort Mason Jefferson St Terminal Disney Highway Ramps D The B n Family 2 l E 33 2 c Anchorage m l Cannery FISHERMANS o Museum Photo Vantage Points v ba M c Beach St (Main Post) d Palace Beach St rc n a Ghirardelli & Scenic Views i WHARF d Baker of Fine Arts 31 L e GGNRA Square North Point St ro BART Station Beach North Point St Headquarters Shopping Complexes t S Bay St Bay St Bay St ra Pier 29 Parks mb R Alha Moscone Francisco St Francisco St 3 Beaches Letterman i Lincoln Blvd c THE 3 h Rec Ctr Veterans Blvd Digital Arts a Chestnut St Points of Interest Center Ave r Chestnut St TELEGRAPH EMBARCADERO ds HILL o “Crookedest 23 Hospitals n d Lombard St Gen.
  • SFAC Civic Art Collection Monuments and Memorials

    SFAC Civic Art Collection Monuments and Memorials

    Means of Acc # Artist Title Date Medium Dimensions Acquisition Credit Line Location Collection of the City and County of San Francisco; Gift to the City of San Francisco by Lotta 1875.1 Anonymous Lotta's Fountain 1875 cast iron, bronze, glass 226 x 76 x 76 in. Gift Crabtree in 1875 Public Display : Market and Kearny St. : NE corner : District 3 1879.1 Anonymous Benjamin Franklin (1706‐1790) 1879 Pot metal 204 x 40 x 40 in. Gift Collection of the City and County of San Francisco; Commissioned; Gift of Henry D. Cogswell Public Display : Washington Square : Filbert, Stockton, Union and Powell St. : central green : District 3 1885.1.a‐e Happersberger, Frank James A. Garfield (1831‐1881) 1885 Bronze 200 x 203 x 208 in. Gift Collection of the City and County of San Francisco; Acquired in 1885 by public subscription Public Display : Golden Gate Park : John F. Kennedy Drive : Conservatory Lawn : District 1 1886.1 Conrads, Carl H. General Henry W. Halleck (1815‐1872) 1886 Granite 190 x 72 x 72 in. Gift Collection of the City and County of San Francisco; Gift of the Major General C.W. Callum Public Display : Golden Gate Park : John F. Kennedy Drive : near Tennis Courts : District 5 1887.1.a‐f Story, William Wetmore Francis Scott Key (1780‐1843) 1887 Bronze, travertine and marble 480 x 275 x 275 in. Gift Collection of the City and County of San Francisco; Gift of James Lick Public Display : Golden Gate Park : Music Concourse Drive : Bowl Drive : northeast end of Music Concourse : District 1 1889.1 Tilden, Douglas Ball Thrower 1889 Bronze 131 1/4 x 69 x 54 in.
  • What Lies Beneath the Marina?

    What Lies Beneath the Marina?

    What Lies Beneath the Marina? Robert Bardell 1922 Filbert St. San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 931-7249 [email protected] A version of this article appeared in the Argonaut Vol. 14 No. 2, Winter 2003, and Vol. 15 No. 1, Summer 2004. What Lies Beneath the Marina? If you answered rubble from 1906, you’re certainly in the majority, but this article will prove you’re absolutely wrong. One of San Francisco’s most enduring myths is that rubble from the 1906 earthquake provided landfill for the Marina District. Extreme versions of this tale claim all the rubble was dumped there; others don’t go quite that far, but all agree the Marina was a convenient dumping ground for the “damndest finest ruins.” A large part of the Panama Pacific International Exposition would later stand on this man-made land—a triumphal symbol for a city celebrating its return from the ashes. It’s a nice story, but completely false. Indeed, the truth turns this story on its head: No significant amount of 1906 debris was dumped in the Marina, and no new land was reclaimed from the tidelands of the bay there until 1912, long after the ruins of the old city had been cleared away and a new San Francisco born. I intend to debunk the myth of earthquake rubble in the Marina with a history of Marina landfill, beginning in the years following California’s admission to the Union and ending with the Panama Pacific International Exposition of 1915. This history will show that the Marina on April 18, 1906 had changed radically from its virgin state, due almost entirely to the effort and capital of one man, James G.
  • Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason

    Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason

    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 May 17, 2011 National Park Service Denver Service Center – Transportation Division Attention: F-Line Draft EIS Planning Team Post Office Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, California (CEQ# 20110079) Dear Planning Team: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the F-Line Streetcar Service Extension, published by the National Park Service, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and the Federal Transit Administration. Our review is pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The SFMTA proposes to extend the San Francisco Municipal Railway F-Market and Wharves Line (F- Line) approximately 0.85 miles west from the intersection of Jefferson and Jones Streets to the west side of Fort Mason Center. The Draft EIS analyzes the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative 1 and two options for Action Alternative 2: Alternative 2A – North Loop Turnaround, which would locate the streetcar turnaround in the Fort Mason parking lot, and Alternative 2B – South Loop Turnaround, which would locate the turnaround in the Great Meadow. The Draft EIS also analyzes the environmental impacts of 8 to 9 station platforms and upgrades to the historic Fort Mason Tunnel. The EPA supports improving local and regional transit service connections to National Park Service attractions.
  • Hatston Pier Proposed Extension and Reclamation

    Hatston Pier Proposed Extension and Reclamation

    Item: 8 Development and Infrastructure Committee: 8 June 2021. Hatston Pier – Proposed Extension and Reclamation. Report by Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure. 1. Purpose of Report To consider a Stage 1 Capital Project Appraisal in respect of the proposal to provide a pier extension and reclamation to the existing Hatston Pier and area. 2. Recommendations The Committee is invited to note: 2.1. That, in April 2020, the Council approved the Orkney Harbours Masterplan Phase 1 as a Strategic Plan for the Statutory Harbour Authority. 2.2. That one of the proposals contained within the Orkney Harbours Masterplan Phase 1 is to extend the existing Hatston Pier and carry out sea-bed reclamation to provide increased quay/storage areas. 2.3. The Stage 1 Capital Project Appraisal in respect of the proposed extension of and seabed reclamation at Hatston Pier, attached as Appendix 8 to this report. 2.4. That, should the project progress through the Capital Project Appraisal process, resources of up to £1,553,838 are required to produce the Stage 2 Capital Project Appraisal, which could be met from the Miscellaneous Piers and Harbours Fund. 2.5. Options for the proposed extension of and seabed reclamation at Hatston Pier, as outlined in section 4 of this report, with the preferred option being to progress to a detailed Stage 2 Capital Project Appraisal. Page 1. 2.6. That, on 25 May 2021, the Harbour Authority Sub-committee recommended to the Development and Instructure Committee that the Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure should submit a report, to the Policy and Resources Committee, regarding funding required to develop the Stage 2 Capital Project Appraisal in respect of the proposed extension of and seabed reclamation of Hatston Pier.
  • America's Natural Nuclear Bunkers

    America's Natural Nuclear Bunkers

    America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers 1 America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10 Alabama .............................................................................................................. 12 Alabama Caves .................................................................................................. 13 Alabama Mines ................................................................................................. 16 Alabama Tunnels .............................................................................................. 16 Alaska ................................................................................................................. 18 Alaska Caves ..................................................................................................... 19 Alaska Mines ............................................................................................... 19 Arizona ............................................................................................................... 24 Arizona Caves ................................................................................................... 25 Arizona Mines ................................................................................................... 26 Arkansas ............................................................................................................ 28 Arkansas Caves ................................................................................................