DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix E Lists the Wildlife Species Detected

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix E Lists the Wildlife Species Detected BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROUTINE FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA June 2012 Prepared by: County of Marin Department of Public Works P.O. Box 4186 San Rafael, CA 94913-4186 (415) 473-4301 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS ...................................................................... 6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 9 2.1 SETTING .................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 PLANT COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITATS ...................................................... 9 California Annual Grassland ....................................................................................... 10 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh ....................................................................................... 10 Diked Baylands ............................................................................................................. 11 North Coast Riparian Scrub/Forest ............................................................................. 12 Mixed Evergreen Forest ............................................................................................... 12 3.0 SPECIAL-STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................ 13 3.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS ....................................................................................... 13 3.2 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE .................................................................................... 16 Invertebrates .................................................................................................................. 17 Fish ................................................................................................................................ 17 Amphibians ................................................................................................................... 18 Reptiles .......................................................................................................................... 19 Birds .............................................................................................................................. 20 Mammals ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.3 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ..................... 25 3.4 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES ....................................................................... 26 3.5 WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS OF THE U.S. ....................................................... 26 Hydrophytic Vegetation ................................................................................................. 26 Soils ................................................................................................................................ 28 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 29 Jurisdictional Determination ......................................................................................... 29 4.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES .......................................... 30 4.1 GENERAL MEASURES.............................................................................................. 30 4.2 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES FOR PLANTS ..................................... 35 4.3 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES FOR INVERTEBRATES ........................ 35 4.4 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES FOR FISH .......................................... 36 4.5 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES FOR AMPHIBIANS ............................. 37 4.6 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES FOR REPTILES ................................... 38 4.7 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES FOR BIRDS ........................................ 39 4.8 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES FOR MAMMALS ................................ 42 5.0 SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 45 6.0 PERMITTING IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................... 46 Federal Jurisdiction – United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ................... 46 Federal Jurisdiction - United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) .................... 47 State Jurisdiction - California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) ....................... 48 Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – Biological Assessment October 2011 i State Jurisdiction - Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ........................ 49 7.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 50 8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 52 Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – Biological Assessment October 2011 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Areas ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Wetland Indicator Status of Common Plant Species Detected Within and Adjacent to Potential Wetlands ..................................................................................................... 27 Table 2. Soils Mapped at the Work Sites ............................................................................. 28 Table 3. Work Windows ....................................................................................................... 32 LIST OF APPENDICES A. FEDERAL AND STATE SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES B. PRELIMINARY LIST OF PROJECT SITES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS C. PROJECT AREA AND SITES MAPS D. PLANT SPECIES DETECTED E. WILDLIFE SPECIES DETECTED F. SITE ASSESSMENT DATA SHEET Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – Biological Assessment October 2011 iii SUMMARY The Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) is proposing to conduct annual vegetation maintenance, vegetation removal, and sediment removal activities at 96 project sites along several creeks in Eastern Marin County and Stinson Beach area within its jurisdiction. We prepared this biological assessment of the study area to determine the potential for the occurrence of special-status plant or animal species, or sensitive vegetation communities, within the areas to be affected by the project. The majority of the vegetation maintenance and sediment removal work occurs in eastern county creeks draining into San Pablo Bay, from Novato Creek in the north to Coyote Creek in the south. There are only three project sites in western Marin County on Easkoot Creek in Stinson Beach, draining to the Pacific Ocean. Most of the maintenance activities occur within urbanized, residential and commercial land uses. Some of the lower reaches include tidally-influenced land reserved for wildlife and flood control purposes; these lands, while having been subject to human activity, now represent the more natural areas within the program scope. Most of the land in the upper reaches is largely undeveloped open space or grazing land. Vegetation communities present within and adjacent to the study area include California annual grassland, northern coastal salt marsh, diked baylands, north coast riparian scrub/forest, and mixed evergreen forest. We pulled endangered species listings from the USFWS for the following USGS quads: Bolinas, Petaluma Point, Novato, San Rafael, and San Quentin. We also checked the State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFG 2010a), Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens (CDFG 2010b), State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFG 2010c), Special Animals (CDFG 2009) lists and the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2008), as well as the online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2010) for Marin County. Based on these searches, a literature and database review and a familiarity with the flora within the project region, we created the list of special status species. Altogether, there are 113 species on the list, of which 41 are listed or candidates for listing, and 72 are federal or state species of concern. Special Status Species Reported or Potentially Occurring at the Project Sites is included in Appendix A. For plants, there are 12 listed species in the selected USGS quadrangles. From the species of concern lists, which are not linked to quad maps, we pulled the species that occur in Marin County, based on CNPS lists, records in the CNDDB, and/or range information from CWHR, resulting in 21 species of concern. Based on the data available, none of the listed species and four of the species of concern are likely or somewhat likely to occur in the project sites. Similarly, for animals, there are 29 listed species in the selected quads, and 46 species of concern. Based on the data available, eight of the listed species and six of the species of concern are likely or somewhat likely to occur in the project sites. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – Biological Assessment October 2011 iv The project sites in West Marin
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Major Streams and Watersheds of East Marin
    Ch ile no t å V S 29 al å le y Rd I D St d Major Streams and WatershedsR of East Marin San Anto o ni i o n R o d t 9å3 S n an A A å nton io Rd n a S Ma rs ha d ll R P s e e ta y lum e a R R d t L P a a k m e lu vi ta lle Pe R d W i lso n H ill Rd SOULAJULE RESERVOIR L 4 a 2 k e v il North Novato le R d 9 48 7 6 3 ay w 0 gh 1 i H e at St r an Ma in S 3 D 7 N r ova U to n B i lv t d 7å3 e å å n d 77 L å S s d t a n v l o t e B m s STAFFORD LAKE d m H i o S o i g A w h th N d w e o e r East Marin Schools v a to a R n to y A d å Bå 55 1 v R lv t G e å d å ra 0 å Blackpoint e n å å å 63 å S t 59 a A 1 1, ADALINE E KENT MIDDLE SCHOOL 34, LYNWOOD ELEM. SCHOOL 67, RING MOUNTAIN DAY SCHOOL å v ve å r m A h D u t r l 7 D o a n å e L b t o 32 ong r å å e å s å Av a il e 2, ALLAIRE SCHOOL 35, MADRONE CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOLP 68, ROSS ELEM.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Coast Miwok and Their Neighbors, 1783-1840
    ETHNOHISTORY AND ETHNOGEOGRAPHY OF THE COAST MIWOK AND THEIR NEIGHBORS, 1783-1840 by Randall Milliken Technical Paper presented to: National Park Service, Golden Gate NRA Cultural Resources and Museum Management Division Building 101, Fort Mason San Francisco, California Prepared by: Archaeological/Historical Consultants 609 Aileen Street Oakland, California 94609 June 2009 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents the locations of Spanish-contact period Coast Miwok regional and local communities in lands of present Marin and Sonoma counties, California. Furthermore, it documents previously unavailable information about those Coast Miwok communities as they struggled to survive and reform themselves within the context of the Franciscan missions between 1783 and 1840. Supplementary information is provided about neighboring Southern Pomo-speaking communities to the north during the same time period. The staff of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) commissioned this study of the early native people of the Marin Peninsula upon recommendation from the report’s author. He had found that he was amassing a large amount of new information about the early Coast Miwoks at Mission Dolores in San Francisco while he was conducting a GGNRA-funded study of the Ramaytush Ohlone-speaking peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula. The original scope of work for this study called for the analysis and synthesis of sources identifying the Coast Miwok tribal communities that inhabited GGNRA parklands in Marin County prior to Spanish colonization. In addition, it asked for the documentation of cultural ties between those earlier native people and the members of the present-day community of Coast Miwok. The geographic area studied here reaches far to the north of GGNRA lands on the Marin Peninsula to encompass all lands inhabited by Coast Miwoks, as well as lands inhabited by Pomos who intermarried with them at Mission San Rafael.
    [Show full text]
  • AGENDA ITEM 7.2 CITY of LARKSPUR Staff Report June 17
    AGENDA ITEM 7.2 CITY OF LARKSPUR Staff Report June 17, 2015 City Council Meeting DATE: June 11, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor Chu and Members of the City Council FROM: Neal Toft, Planning and Building Director RE: PD-PREC/DR 15-16: INTRODUCE AND WAIVE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROSE GARDEN PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ORDINANCE NO. 972 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) FOR LOT 27 (55 ROSE LANE) OF THE ROSE GARDEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (APN #022-741-01 THRU #022-741-43); LARKSPUR LAND 8 OWNER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNER ACTION/REQUEST Hold a public hearing to consider a Draft Ordinance amending the Development Standards of the Rose Garden Precise Development Plan (Ordinance No. 972; Exhibits B and C) to reduce the required 50-foot building and impervious setback requirement from the top-of-bank of the east-west reach of Larkspur Creek. The applicant is requesting a minimum of 48.8 feet for the main building with a 45-foot setback for a 13.5-foot wide portion of the building footprint. Specifically, the applicant requests approval to amend language of Sections 10 and 15 of the Development Standards (Exhibit B) of the Precise Development Plan to adjust the 50-foot building and impervious surface setback solely for Lot 27. The City Council is requested to conduct the public hearing, take public comment, and move to adopt amendment to Ordinance No. 972. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The Central Larkspur Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (CLASP EIR) was certified by the City Council in 2006. An Initial Study (IS) was prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved by the City Council in 2008 at the time the Preliminary Development Plan for Subarea 3 was approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Where in the World Is Corte Madera Creek Watershed
    What in the World is the Corte Madera Creek Watershed? Carole d’Alessio 2001 Off the eastern flanks of eastern Mt. Tamalpais, from Carson Ridge, Loma Alta, White’s Hill, and the Sleepy Hollow Divide, rainwater is funneled to the basin below. From these ridge-tops, rain flows down 42 miles of creeks, and traverses 28 square miles of watershed before it spills into the bay at the mouth of Corte Madera Creek near the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. In all there are 27 named creeks. The two major upstream branches of the creek are Fairfax Creek and San Anselmo Creek. After they join, the stream is known as San Anselmo Creek until it reaches Ross, where it is renamed Corte Madera Creek. In addition to there being extensive streams, there is one lake. Phoenix Lake was constructed in 1905 and was part of the system that Marin Municipal Water District purchased in 1912 from Marin Water and Power Company. Although not used today to provide drinking water, its capacity is enough to supply approximately 1230 families with water for a year. The watershed reaches from sea level to an elevation of 2,571 feet at the East Peak of Mount Tamalpais. In the lower reaches of the watershed, a narrow floodplain merges with the tidal marshes and mudflats that surround San Francisco Bay between San Quentin and the Tiburon Peninsula. In the less inhabited upper reaches, lands are mostly owned by MMWD, and San Anselmo and Marin County Open Space districts. Historically the watershed’s creeksides and valley floor were occupied by Coast Miwok people during a period beginning at least 3,600 years ago; their predominance ended about 200 years ago with the arrival of the Spanish.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Larkspur Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR EDAW City of Larkspur 4.4-1 Hydrology and Water Quality Table 4.4-1 Tidal Characteristics Datum
    4.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the existing hydrologic conditions for the Specific Plan area, including tidal influence, site drainage, sedimentation, flood hazards and water quality. This description of existing conditions is based on a review of existing regional and site information, on site reconnaissance conducted by Philip Williams & Associates (PWA) staff, and by quantitative analyses performed by PWA. Existing information reviewed includes topographic maps (U.S. Geological Survey 1993), historical topographic maps, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 1984), and previous studies including Larkspur Creek Channel Study (BSI Consultants, Inc. 1989), Irving Group Property Residential Development Drainage Study (Brian Kangas Foulk 1998), and City of Larkspur Flood Insurance Study (FEMA 1983). Water quality information includes the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board [San Francisco Bay RWQCB] 1995) and the Corte Madera Watershed Resource Evaluation and Information Report (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 1994). Guidelines for managing water quality impacts, particularly from urban runoff, are described in reports from the Marin County Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) including Action Plan 2005: Protecting and Enhancing Marin County’s Watersheds (Marin County Department of Public Works 2001) and the Condensed Planning and Design Guide for Surface Water Pollution Control Planning and Permanent Best Management Practices (MCSTOPPP 2003). 4.4.1 EXISTING SETTING REGIONAL SETTING Tidal Processes Regional Tidal Characteristics Tidal characteristics from the Corte Madera Creek gauge, approximately 1 mile east-northeast of the Specific Plan area, are shown in Table 4.4-1.
    [Show full text]
  • 3Existing Conditions
    3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING 15 The aerial photo to the left provides a view of land uses surrounding the Plan area. Adjacent land uses north of the Specific 16 Plan area, across Doherty Drive, are the Mt. Tamalpais Racquet Club (#16 in Figure 14 13 3-1), Hall Middle School (#14), a sewer Photo Key 1. 1 Doherty Park 6 2. Railroad buildings 7 3. City parking lot 4. Downtown 5. American Legion 11 2 6. Larkspur Plaza 7. Abandoned greenhouses 8. Meadowood neighborhood 3 10 9. Larkspur Creek 5 10. Tamalpais High School District 9 facilities 11. Redwood High School 12. Twin Cities Police 13. Piper Park 4 8 14. Hall Middle School 15. Larkspur Boardwalk 16. Mt. Tamalpais Racquet Club Figure 3-1 Aerial Photo, Specific Plan Area 3-1 pumping station, the Twin Cities Police Department headquarters A small triangularly shaped public park (Doherty Park, #1) in (#12) and Piper Park (#13). East of the Specific Plan area, across the northwest corner of the site fronting Magnolia Avenue. Larkspur Creek (Arroyo Holon), are the Tamalpais High School District offices, service buildings and equipment yard and the A partially developed private parcel (#2) containing four Redwood High School campus (#10 and 11 in photo). The buildings: a former railroad station building, now occupied Meadowood residential neighborhood (#8 in photo) is south of the by a restaurant; a former railroad station warming house, Specific Plan area, on the other side of Larkspur Creek. Downtown now used as a crafts workshop; and two one-story Larkspur is adjacent to and extends into the western edge and commercial buildings occupied by retail, commercial, and southwest corner of the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • Marin County, California and Incorporated Areas
    VOLUME 1 OF 3 MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER BELVEDERE, CITY OF 060429 Marin County CORTE MADERA, TOWN OF 065023 FAIRFAX, TOWN OF 060175 LARKSPUR, CITY OF 065040 MARIN COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 060173 MILL VALLEY, CITY OF 060177 NOVATO, CITY OF 060178 ROSS, TOWN OF 060179 SAN ANSELMO, TOWN OF 060180 SAN RAFAEL, CITY OF 065058 SAUSALITO, CITY OF 060182 TIBURON, TOWN OF 060430 REVISED March 16, 2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 06041CV001C NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. This FIS report was revised on March 16, 2016. Users should refer to Section 10.0, Revisions Description, for further information. Section 10.0 is intended to present the most up-to-date information for specific portions of this FIS report. Therefore, users of this FIS report should be aware that the information presented in Section 10.0 supersedes information in Sections 1.0 through 9.0 of this FIS report.
    [Show full text]
  • Marin County
    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 MARIN COUNTY Coyote Creek Watershed Coyote Creek originates on the eastern face of the Marin Peninsula range and flows generally east to enter the San Francisco Estuary in Richardson Bay. The Coyote Creek watershed consists of about 3.6 square miles. Oakwood Valley Creek joins Coyote Creek from the south in the lower Tamalpais Valley. Coyote Creek According to local residents, Coyote Creek supported steelhead prior to the construction of a U.S. Army Corps flood project in 1965 (L. Lewis pers. comm.). One location on a branch of Coyote Creek at the GGNRA trailhead along Tennessee Valley Road was sampled in September 1981 as part of a fish distribution study. No salmonids were found (Leidy 1984). Leidy sampled Coyote Creek near the terminus of Northern Avenue in October 1993 and did not find any fish (Leidy 2002). Marin County PWA staff indicates that salmonids do not presently use Coyote Creek (L. Lewis pers. comm.). Assessment: Coyote Creek likely supported steelhead historically.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7, Health & Safety Contents
    CITY OF LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 7, HEALTH & SAFETY CONTENTS Chapter 7, Health and Safety Emergency Preparedness Preparedness Goals, Policies and Programs Flooding Flood Control and Storm Drainage Improvements Rise in Sea Level Flood Hazard Goals, Policies, and Programs Seismic and Geologic Hazards Seismic Hazards Effects of Earthquakes Seismic Hazard Goals, Policies, and Programs Geologic Hazards Geologic Hazard Goals, Policies, and Programs Fire Hazards Wildland Fires Fire Goals, Policies, and Programs Hazardous Materials Hazardous Material Goals, Policies, and Programs Air Quality Regulatory Agencies and Standards Sources of Pollutants, and Health Risks Climate and Topography Historic and Current Air Quality Air Quality Goal, Policies, and Programs Noise Exterior Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility Noise Goals, Policies, and Programs Chapter 7. Community Health and Safety This chapter covers safety, as prescribed by Safety Element provisions of the Government Code, Section 65302(g); and noise, as covered by Noise Element guidelines of the Government Code, Section 65302(f). It also includes air quality. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has strongly urged cities to address air quality in their general plans. Community health and safety involves the protection of the community from natural hazards such as floods, earthquakes, landslides, and fires. It also involves protection from man-made hazards such as air pollution, noise, and hazardous materials. This chapter describes the scope of these hazards, as well as the actions that the City can take to eliminate or reduce the probability of these hazards leading to a major disaster. The overall purpose of this chapter is to-- Protect the community from injury, loss of life, and property damage resulting from natural disasters and hazardous conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Larkspur Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan I
    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LARKSPUR CITY COUNCIL Catherine Way, Mayor Kevin Haroff, Vice Mayor Larry Chu, Council Member Dan Hillmer, Council Member Ann Morrison, Council Member LARKSPUR CITY STAFF Julian Skinner, Public Works Director Dick Whitley, Recreation Director Alvin Tan, Public Works Junior Engineer TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Scott McDonald, Senior Transportation Planner CONSULTANT TEAM Alta Planning + Design Parisi Transportation Consulting CSW / Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group Inc. COVER PHOTO Arn Battaglene, NorthBayDigital Additional thanks to all the members of the public who provided support and feedback during the development of this Plan. Last Updated: February 23, 2017 Larkspur Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. PLAN GOALS 2 3. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 3 4. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS 4 5. LAND USE 7 6. WALKING AND BICYCLING IN LARKSPUR 9 7. EXISTING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 14 8. COLLISION HISTORY 21 9. SAFETY & EDUCATION 23 10. BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES 25 11. MULTI-MODAL CONNECTIONS 28 12. RECOMMENDED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 30 13. RECOMMENDED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 42 14. IMPLEMENTATION 54 APPENDIX A: ATP COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 55 APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES 57 APPENDIX C: MUNICIPAL CODE 69 APPENDIX D: SHARED-USE PATH AND TRAIL ETIQUETTE 75 APPENDIX E: MARIN COUNTY WAYFINDING PROGRAM 85 APPENDIX F: COMPLETE STREETS POLICY 86 APPENDIX G: CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 90 APPENDIX H: BAY TRAIL
    [Show full text]
  • City of Larkspur, California General Plan Appendix
    CITY OF LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN APPENDIX & FIGURES CONTENTS Appendix A: Description of Gateways Appendix B: Description of Neighborhoods Appendix C: Designating and Acquiring Private Property for Public Benefit Figures Appendix A: Description of Gateways One's general impression of Larkspur depends on the point from which the community is entered or the place from which the city is observed. Larkspur is entered at six major gateways - one from the east (from East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard alongside San Quentin Prison); one from the north (descending from the Southern Heights Ridge southbound on US Highway 101); two from the west (southbound on College Avenue from the College of Marin, and eastbound on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard from Wolfe Grade Drive); and two from the south (northbound on Magnolia Avenue from Corte Madera, and northbound on US Highway 101 above the NWPRR right-of-way and just south of - before - the Lucky Drive intersection). The visual impressions from each of these six gateways are quite different and are reviewed below: 1. From the east (westbound on East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard past San Quentin Prison) Coming by car across the bridge from Richmond on Interstate 580, the driver exits onto a ramp and frontage road that parallels the freeway for a little more than half-a-mile. On the right are industrial buildings in San Rafael. On the left is a sparsely wooded hillside. The frontage road swings left and over the I-580 Freeway. On the right are mostly barren hillsides and a major intersection with Andersen Boulevard. On the left can be seen the staff housing, the outer yards, and the high walls of the State prison.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Air Quality
    1. AIR QUALITY The following discussion provides an overview of existing air quality conditions in and around the vicinity of the Larkspur SMART Station Area Plan (Plan) area and the San Francisco Bay Area. Ambient air quality standards and the regulatory framework related to air quality are summarized. Climate, air quality conditions, and typical air pollutant types and sources are described. A. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Air quality standards, the regulatory framework, and State and federal attainment status are discussed below. 1. Air Quality Standards Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS were established for major pollutants, termed “criteria” pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health. Both the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM). In addition, the State has set stand- ards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the public with a reasonable margin of safety. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each criteria pollutant. Federal standards include both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
    [Show full text]