DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Alameda County, CA 121.464602W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Alameda County, CA 121.464602W 38.149255N 38.177591N 122.693912W 2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Alameda County, CA 121.464602W NAPA 055 h g u Isleton iv o l R S LEGEND 12 e S a n l OLANO 095 m eta uma u m P R z u iv S e l t e o u h n k SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL LABEL STYLE t g o h Slou o v M i M R Federal American Indian a American 101 S 7 p u 6 Reservation L'ANSE RES 1880 a i 0 Canyon s 12 u Rio Vista N n O Coast Guard Station Rio Vis T 7 S N 7 lo E 0 Off-Reservation Trust Land, S u 7 O g h M IN T1880 SONOMA 097 6 A U Hawaiian Home Land 37 L 5 0 A R AQ h 9 C NO Grizzly Bay O O g 0 venmile A J Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area, 80 u e S M T S l o o S N Petaluma Riv l O u lumne R Alaska Native Village Statistical Area, a S N gh A ke iv KAW OTSA 5340 09 r o SONOMA 097 Mare Island Californiae Naval Shipyard a N E S th M Tribal Designated Statistical Area Sou I m 5 s A M 37 l u a L 12 n z A 12 h d e S t O R g State American Indian MARIN 041 u t n o S o C ra l Tama Res 4125 Vallejo M S Reservation i t A e Su l Black Point-Green Point isun C S i Terminous Novato ut m of e f e utc 80 r D h State Designated Tribal h S lo T Lumbee STSA 9815 San Pablo Bay ug Statistical Area SOLANO 095 h Po Lucas Valley-Marinwood tato Hamilton AFB 84 S Suisun Bay lo CONTRA COSTA 013 Benicia u Alaska Native Regional 780 g 780 h Corporation NANA ANRC 52120 Carquinez Strait Honker Bay State (or statistically San Joaquin Riv equivalent entity) NEW YORK 36 Lagunitas-Forest Knolls False Riv S County (or statistically Hercules M 7 80 a 6 A ERIE 029 Sleepy Hollow yb 0 N equivalent entity) Crockett Sacramento er Clyde ry O 13 J Woodacre Port Costa 680 Riv S T 0 O Pinole lough EN Bay Point M A A Minor Civil Division Rodeo A T Q CR S (MCD)1,2 Bristol town 07485 A CO U Vine Hill S I Bayview RA N T T N a Bethel 0 Santa Pittsburg yl 680 O or 7 4 C S Island 7 Consolidated City Venetia l MILFORD 47500 o u g Mountain View h MARIN 041 4 4 TaraMontalvin Manor 4 1,3 San Geronimo 80 4 Naval Weapons d Riv Incorporated Place Hills 80 l C Davis 18100 Station Concord O onn ect CONTRA COSTA 013 ion 80 Slou 4 4 gh Census Designated Place Incline Village 35100 Ross North Richmond (CDP) 3 Fairfax Martinez 4 LYTTON Oakley San Anselmo 242 y RNIA 2075 Antioch Census Tract a El Sobrante 33.07 B Rollingwood l 680 e Pacheco a San Concord f LYTTON 80 Dutch Slough a R Rafael RNIA mpire Cut n 80 E a S DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL Kentfield Knightsen East Richmond Heights Alhambra Valley Pleasant Pleasant Lake Larkspur San Pablo Hill 4 Interstate 3 Water Body Corte Clayton Madera 580 Stinson Beach Corte Madera Richmond U.S. Highway 2 Reliez Valley Swamp or Marsh Okefenokee Swamp B El Cerrito Brentwood o 80 li Mill Valley Air Force Sta CONTRA COSTA 013 4 State Highway 4 na M s Contra Costa Centre i La Mill SAN FRANCISCO 075 d go d Glacier Bering Glacier o 80 l n e Marsh Ln 680 Valley Tiburon Walnut Creek R Other Road i Alto v 80 Shell Ridge Belvedere 4WD Trail, Stairway, Military Fort Belvoir Bolinas Bay Strawberry Kensington North Gate Alley, Walkway, or Ferry Lafayette Southern RR Raiload National or State Park, 24 Discovery Bay Yosemite NP 24 Forest, or Recreation Area Acalanes Pipeline or 1 Ridge 680 Power Line Richardson Bay I t a Saranap l Inset Area 4 4 i A San Miguel a Muir Beach n Ridge or Fence S l o u g Orinda Byron h Property Line Outside Subject Area Castle Hill Tamalpais-Homestead Valley Albany 00674 Diablo Nonvisible Boundary Marin City 680 or Feature Not Berkeley 06000 24 Alamo MA Elsewhere Classified RIN Sausalito Belvedere Cv 04 Emeryville 22594 1 Fort Baker Mil Res Moraga 1 80 2 3 MARIN 041 Clifton Court Where state, county, and/or MCD boundaries coincide, the map shows the boundary 80 580 680 Forebay symbol for only the highest-ranking of these boundaries. SAN FRANCISC Coast Guard Station San Francisco 980 O 075 1 A ' ° ' following an MCD name denotes a false MCD. A ' ° ' following a place name 880 indicates that a false MCD exists with the same name and FIPS code as the place; 101 101 580 Danville l the false MCD label is not shown. 880 Blackhawk dota Cn en M 880 a 2 MCD boundaries are shown in the following states in which MCDs have functioning S t l A 1 e D governments: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, N Piedmont New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, F 880 R 80 Coast Guard Station Oakland56938 A Pacific Ocean and Wisconsin. O N a k C 280 l Oakland an Camino Tassajara 3 Place label color correlates to the place fill color. I d S San Ramon San Francisco In 53000 C n er H O S b r 0 A ALAMEDA 001 CONTRA COSTA 013 7 N Mountain House 5 F Alameda ALAMEDA 001 R Norris Canyon A 00562 NC Hunters Point Annex IS C 580 O 0 Lk Merced 7 5 205 Lk Chabot 205 205 Cp Parks SAN FRANCISCO 075 Livermore 41992 580 Broadmoor 101 SAN MATEO 081 Ashland 02980 Dublin 580 280 Castro Valley 11964 580 20018 580 35 San 280 Brisbane Leandro Daly City 68084 Fairview 23350 101 280 San Lorenzo 68112 Colma San Francisco Bay Pleasanton 1 South San Francisco 57792 Cherryland 12902 101 380 380 Tracy 101 92 101 92 1 280 Burlingame 92 S 101 Hayward 33000 a San Bruno n A n d Union City 81204 r 101 Pacifica ea Millbrae s L 101 k ALAMEDA 001 SAN MATEO 081 101 101 Foster City Sunol 77042 92 C A 680 S L A I A F N L O A Montara J O R M 280 84 A N Hillsborough E 880 Q Redwood City D I 280 San A 92 U A I 0 Mateo 84 0 N 6 0 h 0 Half Moon Bay g 84 1 lou 7 S r 7 e rk g C r d e o 92 b o El Granada n w i d W Highlands-Baywood Park 101 e e t 680 R e S s tp 4 Fremont 26000 5 o Belmont in Newark 50916 t S lo 1 101 ug Moss Beach h 280 San Carlos 280 101 Emerald Lake Hills 84 North Fair Oaks Menlo ALAMEDA 00 Park 1 SANTA CLARA 085 ugh Calaveras Mud Slo Reservoir 280 ST Atherton SA A 84 N N I S T S A East Palo A L A N West Menlo Park C Alto L U M A 280 S 680 R A Stanford 0 Palo A 9 T 9 E Alto 0 O 8 0 Milpitas 5 8 280 1 Ladera 5 8 0 1 A 85 8 R 0 A Woodside O L 101 E C Sunnyvale T A Los East Foothills Portola A T Mountain View M N Altos 101 A Valley N S A S Santa Clara 85 Alum Rock Los Altos Hills 280 87 Loyola La Honda Cupertino Burbank Fruitdale Campbell San Jose Location of County within State Loma S Mar S T Saratoga A A N 17 N T I S Cambrian Park A Pescadero L C A U L S A S A R 0 A S N 9 85 9 A T 0 N A 8 T CL 5 A AR C A R SAN MATEO 081 U 0 Z 85 0 Monte Sereno Los Gatos SANTA CRUZ 087 87 37.181604N 37.209578N 122.650521W 121.43694W All legal boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2010. The boundaries shown on this Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic map are for Census Bureau statistical data collection and tabulation purposes only; their Datum: NAD 83 INDEX SHEET NAME: Alameda County (001) Spheroid: GRS 80 depiction and designation for statistical purposes does not constitute a determination of 0 4 8 12 16 20 Kilometers ENTITY TYPE: County or statistically equivalent entity jurisdictional authority or rights of ownership or entitlement. 1st Standard Parallel: 34 06 27 Total Sheets: 6 2nd Standard Parallel: 40 25 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles ST: California (06) Geographic Vintage: 2010 Census (reference date: January 1, 2010) - Index Sheets: 1 Central Meridian: -119 18 20 The plotted map scale is 1:147384 - Parent Sheets: 5 Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau's MAF/TIGER database (TAB10ST06) Latitude of Projection's Origin: 32 31 43 Map Created by Geography Division: December 05, 2010 False Easting: 0 - Inset Sheets: 0 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau False Northing: 0 2010 CENSUS TRACT REF MAP (INDEX) U S C E N S U S B U R E A U 205006001000 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay
    Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Final Report Prepared for California Department of Fish & Game Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) 425 G Executive Court North Fairfield, CA 94534-4019 Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 SSEP Contract No. P0775013 30 September 2009 Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Final Report Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 USA Prepared at the Request of Carl Jochums California Department of Fish & Game Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) 425 G Executive Court North Fairfield, CA 94534-4019 Submitted to Bruce Joab, SSEP Coordinator and Contract Manager Office of Spill Prevention and Response CA Department of Fish and Game 1700 K Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone 916-322-7561 SSEP Contract No. PO775013 Note: This study was conducted in collaboration with Applied Science Associates (ASA), Inc., of South Kingston, RI, under SSEP Contract No. PO775010. ASA submitted a separate Final Report entitled Transport and Impacts of Oil Spills in San Francisco Bay – Implications for Response. i Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Methyl and Total Mercury Spatial and Temporal Trends in Surficial Sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta
    Methyl and Total Mercury Spatial and Temporal Trends in Surficial Sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project Final Report Submitted to: Mark Stephenson California Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039 Submitted by: Wesley A. Heim Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Rd Moss Landing, CA 95039 [email protected] (email) 831-771-4459 (voice) Dr. Kenneth Coale Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Rd Moss Landing, CA 95039 Mark Stephenson California Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent studies indicate significant amounts of mercury are transported into the Bay-Delta from the Coastal and Sierra mountain ranges. In response to mercury contamination of the Bay-Delta and potential risks to humans, health advisories have been posted in the estuary, recommending no consumption of large striped bass and limited consumption of other sport fish. The major objective of the CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project “Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed” is to reduce mercury levels in fish tissue to levels that do not pose a health threat to humans or wildlife. This report summarizes the accomplishments of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) at Moss Landing as participants in the CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project. Specific objectives of MLML and CDF&G include: 1.
    [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]
  • Deconstructing Mare Island Reconnaissance in the Ruins
    Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/boom/article-pdf/2/2/55/381274/boom_2012_2_2_55.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 richard white Photographs by Jesse White Deconstructing Mare Island Reconnaissance in the ruins The detritus still he Carquinez Strait has become driveover country. Beginning around Vallejo and running roughly six miles to Suisun Bay, Grizzly Bay, and the Sacramento possesses a T River Delta, the Strait has, in the daily life of California, reduced down to the Carquinez and Benicia-Martinez bridges. Motorists are as likely to be searching for grim grandeur. their toll as looking at the land and water below. Few will exit the interstates. Why stop at Martinez, Benicia, Vallejo, Crockett, or Port Costa? They are going west to Napa or San Francisco or east to Sacramento. Like travelers’ destinations, California’s future also appears to lie elsewhere. Once, much of what moved out of Northern California came through these communities, but now the Strait seems left with only the detritus of California’s past. The detritus still possesses a grim grandeur. To the east, the Mothball Fleet— originally composed of transports and battleships that helped win World War II— cluster tightly together, toxic and rusting, in Suisun Bay. Just west of the bridges, Mare Island (really a peninsula with a slough running through it) sits across the mouth of the Napa River. The United States established a naval base and shipyard there in 1854, and the island remained central to US military efforts from the Civil Boom: A Journal of California, Vol. 2, Number 2, pps 55–69.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Impact Analysis of Fine Particulate Matter in the San Francisco Bay Area
    Health Impact Analysis of Fine Particulate Matter In the San Francisco Bay Area 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is a complex mixture of suspended particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere having aerodynamic diameters of 2.5 µm or less. An individual particle typically begins as a core or nucleus of carbonaceous material, often containing trace metals. These primary (directly emitted) particles usually originate from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels or biomass. Layers of organic and inorganic compounds are then deposited onto particles while they coalesce, causing the particles to grow in size. The deposited layers include secondary material that is not emitted directly. Secondary components instead form through chemical reactions of precursor gases released from combustion, agriculture, household activities, industry, vegetation, and other sources. As particles grow larger, gravity eventually causes them to settle onto surfaces. Most naturally emitted dust particles have diameters too large to be classified as PM2.5. Numerous studies have demonstrated PM2.5 to be deleterious to human health. Major human health outcomes resulting from PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory problems, leading to increased hospital admissions; cardiovascular symptoms, including chronic hardening of the arteries and acute triggering of heart attacks; and decreased life expectancy, potentially on the order of years. Smaller particles have increasingly more severe impacts on human health than larger particles. This occurs in part because smaller particles are able to penetrate more deeply into the human body. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has developed a computer program, named the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP), to estimate health impacts associated with changes in ambient levels of pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • PAH) Contamination in San Francisco Bay: a 10-Year Retrospective of Monitoring in an Urbanized Estuary
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Environmental Research 105 (2007) 101–118 www.elsevier.com/locate/envres Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination in San Francisco Bay: A 10-year retrospective of monitoring in an urbanized estuary Daniel R. Orosa, John R.M. Rossa,Ã, Robert B. Spiesb, Thomas Mumleyc aSan Francisco Estuary Institute, 7770 Pardee Lane, 2nd Floor, Oakland, CA 94621, USA bApplied Marine Sciences, 4749 Bennett Drive, Suite L, Livermore, CA 94550, USA cCalifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, CA 94612, USA Received 21 July 2006; received in revised form 21 September 2006; accepted 20 October 2006 Available online 14 December 2006 Abstract Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are widespread contaminants in the San Francisco Bay. Several exceedances of water quality criteria raise the possibility that PAH may be impacting aquatic biota. The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary (RMP) has collected annual monitoring data on PAH in the Bay since 1993. Analysis of Bay water, sediment, and mussel SPAH concentration data showed that there were very few significant (Po0.05) increasing or decreasing temporal trends in SPAH concentrations in the Bay during the period of 1993–2001. Wet and dry season input of PAH did not show any major influence on water SPAH concentrations over the same period. Based on their relative contribution to the estimated total maximum PAH loading (10,700 kg/yr) into the Bay, the PAH loading pathways are ranked as storm water runoff (51%)4tributary inflow (28%)4waste- water treatment plant effluent (10%)4atmospheric deposition (8%)4dredged material disposal (2%).
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Pilot Study
    San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances Results of the Benthic Pilot Study 1994-1997 Part 1–Macrobenthic Assemblages of the San Francisco Bay-Delta, and their Responses to Abiotic Factors Bruce Thompson and Sarah Lowe, San Francisco Estuary Institute Michael Kellogg, City and County of San Francisco Technical Report 39 • August, 2000 iii Results of the Benthic Pilot Study Contents Executive Summary .................................................... 8 Introduction .................................................................. 10 Objectives..................................................................... 10 Environmental Setting .................................................... 11 Methods ....................................................................... 12 Sample Collection & Analysis ........................................ 12 Data Analysis ............................................................. 13 Results and Discussion.................................................... 14 Identification of Benthic Assemblages ............................ 14 Species Composition & Distribution of Assemblages ......... 16 Number of Taxa, Total Abundance & Biomass.................. 22 Asssemblage Response to Changes in Abiotic Factors....... 23 Summary & Conclusions ................................................. 26 Acknowledgments .......................................................... 29 Literature Cited.............................................................. 29 Appendix 1...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 38Th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference
    Salmonid Restoration Federation’s Mission Statement 38th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference Salmonid Restoration Federation was formed in 1986 to help stream March 31 – April 3, 2020 Santa Cruz, CA restoration practitioners advance the art and science of restoration. Salmonid Restoration Federation promotes restoration, stewardship, 2020 Vision for California’s Salmonscape and recovery of California native salmon, steelhead, and trout populations through education, collaboration, and advocacy. 38 th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference • 2020, Santa Cruz, CA Conference • 2020, Restoration Salmonid Annual SRF Goals & Objectives 1. To provide affordable technical education and best management practices trainings to the watershed restoration community. Conference Co-Sponsors Balance Hydrologics, Inc., Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, 2. Conduct outreach to constituents, landowners, and decision-makers Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, California American Water, California Conservation Corps, to inform the public about the plight of endangered salmon and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Water Resources, the need to preserve and restore habitat to recover salmonid California State Coastal Conservancy, CalTrans, California Trout - North Coast, Cardno, cbec, inc., City of Santa Cruz-Water Branch, County of Santa Cruz, East Bay Municipal Utility District, populations. Environmental Science Associates, Eureka Water Probes, FISHBIO, GHD, Green Diamond Resource Company - CA Timberlands
    [Show full text]
  • Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (Pfass) in San Francisco Bay: Synthesis and Strategy
    CONTRIBUTION NO. 867 JUNE 2018 Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in San Francisco Bay: Synthesis and Strategy Prepared by Meg Sedlak, Rebecca Sutton, Adam Wong, and Diana Lin San Francisco Estuary Institute SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE • CLEAN WATER PROGRAM/RMP • 4911 CENTRAL AVE., RICHMOND, CA • WWW.SFEI.ORG Suggested citation: Sedlak, M., Sutton R., Wong A., Lin, Diana. 2018. Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in San Francisco Bay: Synthesis and Strategy. RMP Contribution No. 867. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond CA. 130 pages. FINAL JUNE 2018 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction and Overview of PFAS Chemistry, Uses, Concerns and Management ........................ 4 1.1 Objectives of this Report............................................................................................................... 4 1.2 PFASs: Structure and Uses ............................................................................................................ 4 1.2.1 Perfluoroalkyl Substances ..................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Polyfluoroalkyl Substances ................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Uses of PFASs ................................................................................................................................ 7 1.4
    [Show full text]
  • REPRODUCED from BEST AVAILABLE COPY Graphic Sheets and Part of the U.S
    PRELIMINARY MAP OF HISTORIC MARGINS OF MARSHLAND, SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CALIFORNIA by Donald R. Nichols and Nancy A. Wright INTRODUCTION The changes in the margins, size, and depth of San Francisco Bay :.n historic time have been the subject of much controversy. Estimates c^ the area that has been filled have been cited as evidence that one of the Nation's most scenic estuaries is rapidly being destroyed. Widesprea . concern has been voiced on the possible disastrous effects of a great earthquake on structures built on fill overlying soft saturated sedimer/ o in the Bay. Legal questions have arisen over the boundaries of original land grants bordering the Bay and the; blocking of navigable chanr.^ls by filling or diking. Data bearing on these c^nc related problems, however, have not been readily accessible or easily compiled. j / The location of former margins of salt marshes and old sloughs and channels have been determined for small areas of the Bay (Bonilla, 1965; Bonilla and Gates, 1961; and Radbruch, 1957, and 1959) or for specific sites. The character of sediments in and between old channels and sloughs may vary markedly and may greatly affect the stability of fill and structures placed over them. However, the location of many of these relic features may be masked from detailed site exploration by fill and evaporation ponds. A detailed synthesis of early surveys for the entire Bay area has long been needed for regional and local planning efforts and for engineering projects. The accompanying map was pre­ pared from the earliest available U. S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natural Scene in the San Francisco Bay Area
    Permaculture Education Eco Agriculture 32) Green Gulch Farm Renewable Technology 61) San Joaquin River Conservancy 74) Blake Garden 110) Coyote Hills Regional Park 145) Leslie Shao-ming Sun Field Station Green Schools 213) Grizzly Island Wildlife Area GreatViews &Vistas 17171771 1) Humboldt State Campus Center 16) Arcata Educational Farm www.sfzc.org/ggfindex.htm 49) Schatz Solar Hydrogen www. riverparkway.org www-laep.ced.berkeley.edu/laep/ ebparks.org/parks/coyote.htm www.jr-solar.stanford.edu 179) HSU Environmental Engineering www.suisunwildlife.org 250) Mt. Vision, Point Reyes Peninsula 1 for Appropriate Technology www.humboldt.edu/~farm 33) Slide Ranch www.slideranch.org Energy Research Center 62) Monterey Bay Coastal Trail blakegarden/garden.html 111) Hayward Shoreline Interpretive Ctr. 146) Hewlett Foundation Building* www.humboldt.edu/~ere_dep 214) Audubon Canyon Ranch 251) Mt. Tamalpais 222131311 Arcata166 15959 17) Sustainable Agriculture Farm, 34) M.L. King Edible Schoolyard 75) UC Botanical Garden 147) San Mateo Green Buildings 180) Mendocino Ecological Learning Ctr. 252) Angel Island Eureka www.humboldt.edu/~ccat www.humboldt.edu/~serc www.evansmonterey.com/bobTours www.haywardrec.org/hayshore.html www.egret.org 2) Island Mountain Institute Redwood College www.edibleschoolyard.org 50) Arcata City Hall PV Solar System Special Gardens www.botanicalgarden.berkeley.edu 112) Edwards SF Bay Wildlife Refuge *www.recycleworks.org/ www.melc.us 215) Las Gallinas Wildlife Area & 253) Berkeley, Cesar Chavez Park 49,50500 www.imisa.org www.newfarm.org 35) People’s Grocery 51) Solar Living Center 63) Mendocino Botanical Gardens 76) Berkeley’s 30 Community Gardens www.desfbayfws.gov greenbuilding/localgbldgs.html 181) Emerald Earth China Camp State Park 11 Spinnaker Way 222322 2202 20517979 113) Newark Slough Learning Center 148) San Jose West Valley Solar Library 22299 3) Mendocino Ecological Learning Ctr.
    [Show full text]