Museum Newsletter Fall 2015
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
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 ...................................................... -
Port of Oakland Maritime Facilities
Port of Oakland Maritime Facilities 0 1/2 1 nautical mile 80 Berths Terminal Union Pacific Tides in San Francisco Bay BNSF Railway N MAGNETIC Railroad San Francisco Bay Area 80 0 1/2 1 mile Mean Mean Mean 14° 11' 20–26 Ports America high low range Sacramento 0 1/2 1 kilometer +5.6 ft -1.3 ft +6.9 ft E Outer Harbor Terminal +1.7m -0.4m +1.3m N 505 50 Operator: Ports America W 580 Santa Rosa Terminal Gates / Berth Numbers 101 Carriers Petaluma UPRR CCNI Maersk S Napa r ive o R Hamburg Süd MSC nt Major Warehouse / Transload Facility Faireld e m ra Hapag-Lloyd Polynesia c 37 80 a S City Development Area Horizon Yang Ming 32nd St. K-Line 80 Vallejo 5 Trade and Logistics Complex San Rafael Richmond 30–32 TraPac Terminal 80 99 Public Truck Scales 101 Operator: TraPac Inc. Concord Carriers Permitted Heavy Weight Container Routes BNSF Toll Plaza BNSF MOL Hyundai For info visit www.portofoakland.com (westbound only) 24 Intermodal San Francisco Facility APL Northport City Truck Telegraph Av. Freeways City Parking San Oakland Stockton Beach Development Francisco Port of 580 UPRR Bay Oakland 680 UPRR 35–38 Ben E. Nutter Terminal Intermodal Rail Facilities Area Alaska St. PCC Logistics SF Int’l Int’l Airport Intermodal OT411 Facility AMNAV Maritime Africa St. West Grand Av. Oakland Airport (OAK) Crowley 808 Operator: Seaside Transportation Corregidor Av. (SFO) Tug Services Tug Service Bataan Av. UPRR 580 Lathrop Services (STS)/Evergreen Burma Rd. S Container Cranes (Port Owned) UPRR a 9 807 n J o 8 Buna St. -
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. -
Coast Guard, DHS § 165.1190
Coast Guard, DHS § 165.1190 include toxic or flammable properties sonnel. Patrol personnel comprise com- or a combination of both. missioned, warrant, and petty officers (c) Regulations. All vessels loaded of the Coast Guard onboard Coast with a cargo of liquefied hazardous gas Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, (LHG) within this Regulated Naviga- state, and federal law enforcement ves- tion Area must proceed directly to sels. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast their intended cargo reception facility Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, to discharge their LHG cargo, unless: flashing light, or other means, the op- (1) The vessel is otherwise directed or erator of a vessel shall proceed as di- permitted by the Captain of the Port. rected. The Captain of the Port can be reached [COTP San Francisco Bay 03–029, 69 FR 11316, at telephone number (415) 399–3547 or on Mar. 10, 2004] VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). If per- mission is granted, all persons and ves- § 165.1190 Security Zone; San Fran- sels must comply with the instructions cisco Bay, Oakland Estuary, Ala- of the Captain of the Port or his or her meda, CA. designated representative. (a) Location. The following area is a (2) The vessel is in an emergency sit- security zone: All navigable waters of uation and unable to proceed as di- the Oakland Estuary, California, from rected in paragraph (a) of this section the surface to the sea floor, approxi- without endangering the safety of per- mately 50 yards into the Oakland Estu- sons, property, or the environment. -
Oakland Estuary SF Bay Trail
COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation June 5, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: OAKLAND ESTUARY SEGMENTS CONSTRUCTION (CRYER BOATHOUSE AND DERBY AVE-TO-LANCASTER ST SEGMENTS) File No. 07-063-04 Project Manager: Moira McEnespy RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization for the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to disburse up to four hundred thousand dollars of previously-authorized Conservancy funds to the City of Oakland to construct two segments of the San Francisco Bay Trail along the Oakland estuary. LOCATION: Adjacent to the Cryer Boathouse, and from Derby Avenue to Lancaster Street, along the Oakland estuary, Alameda County (see Exhibits 1-4) PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location Map Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Project Site Maps (2) – Cryer Boathouse Segment Exhibit 4: Project Site Maps (2) – Derby Avenue to Lancaster Street Segment Exhibit 5: Letters of Support Exhibit 6: Environmental Impact Report for City of Oakland Measure DD Implementation Project (Certified February 13, 2008) RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31160-31165 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to disburse an amount not to exceed $400,000 (four hundred thousand dollars) of the total Conservancy funds authorized on September 20, 2007 to the City of Oakland to construct two approximately 450-foot segments of the San Francisco Bay Trail along the Oakland estuary in Alameda County (the Cryer Boathouse segment and the Derby Avenue to Lancaster Street segment), subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 15 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: OAKLAND ESTUARY SEGMENTS CONSTRUCTION (CRYER BOATHOUSE AND DERBY-TO-LANCASTER SEGMENTS) 1. -
Latitude 38'S Guide to Bay Sailing
MayCoverTemplate 4/21/09 9:51 AM Page 1 Latitude 38 VOLUME 383 May 2009 WE GO WHERE THE WIND BLOWS MAY 2009 VOLUME 383 BAYGUIDE SAILING TO BAY SAILINGGUIDE Is there anyone out there who's worth of learning the hard way into one and is worth a pass. Stay in the channel not feeling the pinch of the recession? grand tour of the Bay done in style and though, as the northeast side is shallow We doubt it. And yes, many are feeling comfort. We call it the The Perfect Day- and the bottom is riddled with debris. more than a pinch. We're reminded of sail, and it goes like this... Sailing back out the Sausalito Chan- the advice of Thomas Jefferson: "When Start anywhere east of Alcatraz about nel, hug the shoreline and enjoy the you get to the end of your rope, tie a 11 a.m., at which time the fog is begin- Mediterranean look of southern Sau- knot and hang on!" ning to burn off and a light breeze is fill- salito. Generally, the closer you stay to Speaking of ropes and knots and ing in. You're going to be sailing coun- this shore, the flukier the wind — until hanging on, while the 'suits' rage from terclockwise around the Bay, so from you get to Hurricane Gulch. It's not shore while the economy struggles to Alcatraz, head around the backside of marked on the charts, but you'll know extricate itself from the tarpit — we Angel Island and sail west up Raccoon when you're there. -
(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. -
Local Notice to Mariners Lnm1142201
U.S. Department of Homeland Security United States Coast Guard LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS District: 11 Week: 42/15 CORRESPONDENCE TO: COMMANDER DISTRICT ELEVEN (DPW) COAST GUARD ISLAND BUILDING 50-2 ALAMEDA, CA 94501-5100 REFERENCES: COMDTPUB P16502.6, Light List Volume VI, 2015 Edition, U.S. Chart No.1 12th Edition, and Coast Pilot Volume 7 46th Edition. These publications, along with corrections, are available at: http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/nsd/cpdownload.htm. BROADCAST NOTICE TO MARINERS - Information concerning aids to navigation and waterway management promulgated through BNM HB-0016-15, SF-0185-15, LA-0154-15, and SD-0118-15 have been incorporated in this notice, or will continue if still significant. SECTION I - SPECIAL NOTICES This section contains information of special concern to the Mariner. SUBMITTING INFORMATION FOR PUBLICATION IN THE LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS A complete set of guidelines with examples and contact information can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/D11/DP/LnmRequest.asp or call BM1 Alfred Albert at 510-437-2980 or e-mail [email protected]. Please provide all Local Notice to Mariners submissions 14 days prior to the start of operations. COAST GUARD LIGHT LISTS-CHANGE IN DISTRIBUTION METHOD Coast Guard Light Lists are a means for communicating aids to navigation information to the maritime public. Effective immediately, the Coast Guard will no longer print hardcopy Light Lists. The last government printed Light Lists were the 2014 editions. Based on emerging technology and the ability to update Light Lists on a weekly basis, the cost and time for printing the Light List on an annual basis has reached obsolescence. -
Oakland Estuary Enhancement Project Alameda County, CA Contributor: Todd Thalhamer, California Dept
NOAA Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Case Study Study Oakland Estuary Enhancement Project Alameda County, CA Contributor: Todd Thalhamer, California Dept. of Resources Recycling and Recovery Project Overview Reason for project: To remove marine debris, abandoned vessels and navigational hazards from the estuary to provide visual, health and safety enhancements to the public and the estuary environment. Date initiated: August 2013 Project duration: 12 months Number of vessels removed: 59 vessels, including two tugs over 100 ft. in length. Project Location Location: Alameda County, California Site Name(s): Oakland Estuary General description of location: The Oakland Estuary is a tidal waterway situated between the cities of Oakland and Alameda, which connects the San Francisco Bay with the San Leandro Bay. The debris was scattered over 77 different sites within the estuary. Average Site Depth: < 15 ft. Habitat/Substrate Type Impacted: Marsh, mudflats and estuary bottom habitat Jurisdictions: Alameda County and the State of California Project Narrative History: In late 2011 California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) cleanup staff was approached by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) regarding submittal of a grant for the removal of marine debris in the bay area. After reviewing the grant requirements, CalRecycle determined that the US EPA funds were not sufficient and too restrictive to allow for a substantial project to be completed. The US EPA also forwarded CalRecycle an additional grant opportunity from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that was based on the 2011 Cosco Busan Spill legal settlement. After a preliminary site visit, CalRecycle determined the estuary contained enough marine debris and abandoned vessels to develop an initial grant request for the 2012 Cosco Busan Recreational Use Grant Program. -
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. -
Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings
Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-114 September 2005 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 15, Third Edition Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings National Highway Institute Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-NHI-05-114 HEC 15 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings September 2005 Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number 15, Third Edition 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Roger T. Kilgore and George K. Cotton 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Kilgore Consulting and Management 2963 Ash Street 11. Contract or Grant No. Denver, CO 80207 DTFH61-02-D-63009/T-63044 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Federal Highway Administration Final Report (3rd Edition) National Highway Institute Office of Bridge Technology April 2004 – August 2005 4600 North Fairfax Drive 400 Seventh Street Suite 800 Room 3202 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Arlington, Virginia 22203 Washington D.C. 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Project Manager: Dan Ghere – FHWA Resource Center Technical Assistance: Jorge Pagan, Joe Krolak, Brian Beucler, Sterling Jones, Philip L. Thompson (consultant) 16. Abstract Flexible linings provide a means of stabilizing roadside channels. Flexible linings are able to conform to changes in channel shape while maintaining overall lining integrity. Long-term flexible linings such as riprap, gravel, or vegetation (reinforced with synthetic mats or unreinforced) are suitable for a range of hydraulic conditions. Unreinforced vegetation and many transitional and temporary linings are suited to hydraulic conditions with moderate shear stresses. -
Orkney & Shetland
r’ Soil Survey of Scotland ORKNEY & SHETLAND 1250 000 SHEET I The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research Aberdeen 1982 SOIL SURVEY OF SCOTLAND Soil and Land Capability for Agriculture ORKNEY AND SHETLAND By F. T. Dry, BSc and J. S. Robertson, BSc The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research Aberdeen 1982 @ The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen, 1982 The cover illustration shows St. Magnus Bay, Shetland with Foula (centre nght) in the distance. Institute of Geological Sciences photograph published by permission of the Director; NERC copyright. ISBN 0 7084 0219 4 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS ABERDEEN Contents Chapter Page PREFACE 1 DESCRIPTIONOF THE AREA 1 GEOLOGY AND RELIEF 1 North-east Caithness and Orkney 1 Shetland 3 CLIMATE 9, SOILS 12 North-east Caithness and Orkney 12 Shetland 13 VEGETATION 14 North-east Caithness and Orkney 14 Shetland 16 LAND USE 19 North-east Caithness and Orkney 19 Shetland 20 2 THE SOIL MAP UNITS 21 Alluvial soils 21 Organic soils 22 The Arkaig Association 24 The Canisbay Association 29 The Countesswells/Dalbeattie/Priestlaw Associations 31 The Darleith/Kirktonmoor Associations 34 The Deecastle Association 35 The Dunnet Association 36 The Durnhill Association 38 The Foudland Association 39 The Fraserburgh Association 40 The Insch Association 41 The Leslie Association 43 The Links Association 46 The Lynedardy Association 47 The Rackwick Association 48 The Skelberry Association 48 ... 111 CONTENTS The Sourhope Association 50 The Strichen Association 50 The Thurso Association 52 The Walls