EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT
ALBANY BEACH RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY
EASTSHORE STATE PARK, CALIFORNIA
January 12, 2011 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT
ALBANY BEACH RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY
Eastshore State Park, California
Submitted to the:
East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605-0381 510.544.2627
Prepared by:
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810
Kathy Boyer, Ph.D. Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. San Francisco State University Environmental Hydrology 3152 Paradise Drive 550 Kearny Street, Suite 900 Tiburon, California 94920 San Francisco, California 94108 415.338.3751 415.262.2300
Baseline Environmental Consulting Vallier Design Associates, Inc. 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D 210 Washington Avenue, Suite G Emeryville, California 94608 Point Richmond, California 94801 510.420.8686 510.237.7745 January 12, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND...... 1 1.2 PURPOSE...... 1 1.3 REPORT PREPARATION ...... 2 1.4 PROJECT AND STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION...... 3 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION ...... 7 2.1 HISTORICAL AND CURRENT LAND USE...... 7 2.2 REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS...... 7 2.3 GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES, GOALS AND POLICIES...... 11 2.4 MUNICIPAL CODES, ZONING AND OTHER LOCAL PLANS AND STUDIES ...... 12 3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE...... 14 3.1 INTRODUCTION...... 14 3.2 ROADS AND TRAILS...... 17 3.3 STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES...... 17 3.4 WATER SUPPLY...... 18 3.5 WASTEWATER/SANITARY SEWER SERVICE...... 18 3.6 STORM WATER ...... 19 3.7 ELECTRICAL/GAS...... 19 3.8 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ...... 19 3.9 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT...... 19 4.0 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION...... 21 4.1 INTRODUCTION...... 21 4.2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ...... 23 4.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS...... 24 4.4 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS...... 25 4.5 ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT...... 26 4.6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 26 5.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND SITE REMEDIATION...... 28 5.1 INTRODUCTION...... 28 5.2 SITE HISTORY ...... 28 5.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ...... 29 5.4 RWQCB ORDER 98-072...... 29 5.5 DISCUSSION...... 33 6.0 OTHER SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 34 6.1 INTRODUCTION...... 34 6.2 EXISTING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 34 7.0 PHYSICAL PROCESSES ...... 36 7.1 INTRODUCTION...... 36 7.2 ALBANY SHORELINE EVOLUTION ...... 37 7.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 41 7.4 HYDROLOGY...... 42 7.5 TIDES...... 42 7.6 RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE AND SUBSIDENCE...... 43 7.7 WAVES...... 44
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) i 7.8 SEISMIC HAZARDS ...... 54 7.9 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CONDITIONS...... 57 8.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 61 8.1 INTRODUCTION...... 61 8.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ...... 61 8.3 EXISTING VEGETATION AND SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES...... 66 8.4 EXISTING WILDLIFE AND SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMALS...... 73 8.5 EXISTING WETLANDS AND OTHER IMPORTANT HABITATS...... 82 8.6 FUTURE CONDITIONS ...... 86 9.0 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES...... 89 9.1 INTRODUCTION...... 89 9.2 METHODS...... 89 9.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT ...... 90 9.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING...... 94 9.5 RESOURCE INVENTORY...... 96 10.0 AESTHETICS...... 98 10.1 INTRODUCTION...... 98 10.2 EXISTING AND FUTURE VISUAL RESOURCES...... 98 11.0 PARK MAINTENANCE...... 100 11.1 INTRODUCTION...... 100 11.2 EXISTING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ...... 100 11.3 FUTURE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS ...... 101 12.0 REFERENCES...... 102
APPENDICES
A: Master Plan Policies and Goals Relevant to the Albany Beach Study Area B: Traffic and Circulation Level of Service Output Report C: Traffic Count Data D: Phase II Site Assessment, Fleming Point Property E: Comparison of Sea Level Rise Projections F: WAVE98 Documentation G: Animal Species Observed by LSA March 26, 2010 H: Delineation of Potential Waters of the United States in the Albany Beach Study Area
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) ii FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location...... 4 Figure 2: Study Area and Landmarks...... 5 Figure 3: Property Ownership ...... 6 Figure 4: Bay Plan Map...... 9 Figure 5: Existing Infrastructure ...... 15 Figure 6: Nearest Utilities Outside Study Area...... 16 Figure 7: Traffic and Circulation Study Areas ...... 22 Figure 8: City of Albany Existing and Proposed Bikeways...... 27 Figure 9: 1993 Phase I Sampling Locations at Fleming Point ...... 30 Figure 10: 1994 Phase II Sampling Locations at Fleming Point...... 31 Figure 11: 1850 Albany Shoreline ...... 39 Figure 12: Evolution of Albany Shoreline 1949-2009 ...... 40 Figure 13: Wind Rose at UC Richmond Station ...... 46 Figure 14: Map of Fetches and Wind Stations ...... 47 Figure 15: Offshore and Nearshore Wave Height Rose...... 49 Figure 16: Offshore and Nearshore Wave Period Rose ...... 50 Figure 17: Offshore and Nearshore Wave Power Rose...... 52 Figure 18: Coastal Flood Limits...... 55 Figure 19: Existing Vegetation and Habitat Types ...... 67 Figure 20: Potential Waters of the United States ...... 83 Figure 21: Potential Waters of the United States - Detail ...... 84
TABLES
Table 4.1: Existing Level of Service Summary...... 24 Table 4.2: Parking Space Trip Generation ...... 25 Table 4.3: Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary...... 26 Table 7.1: NOAA Tidal Datums (1983-2001 epoch) for San Francisco Presidio Tide Gauge ...... 43 Table 7.2: Direction, Length, and Depth of Fetches at Albany Beach...... 48 Table 7.3: Recurrence Intervals of Extreme Wind Speeds at San Francisco International Airport and Estimated Corresponding Extreme Wave Height and Period with a 2-yr Water Level...... 53 Table 7.4: Calculation of the Total Water Level...... 54 Table 8.1: Special-status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of Albany Beach, Eastshore State Park, California ...... 74
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) iii LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND In 2002 the State of California classified 2,262 acres of uplands and tidelands with frontage on San Francisco Bay as a State Seashore and named the unit Eastshore State Park (Park). The Park consists of approximately 2,002 acres of tidelands and 260 acres of upland areas along a nine-mile stretch of the East Bay shoreline, between the City of Oakland on the south and the City of Richmond on the north. Eastshore State Park is jointly owned by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) and East Bay Regional Park District (District). The District manages and operates the Park through an agreement with CDPR. As lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CDPR approved the Eastshore State Park General Plan and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report in 2002 (East Bay Regional Park District 2009). The General Plan establishes land uses and identifies potential improvements for the Park (East Bay Regional Park District website, accessed March 25, 2010). The approved General Plan was the result of a 22-month planning process that included four stakeholder meetings followed by four regional workshops to incorporate public input. Stakeholders included agencies, landowners, businesses, user groups and environmental groups.
Albany Beach, located on the shoreline between the Albany Neck and Golden Gate Fields, is identified in the General Plan as one of several key Park features that would benefit from public access and conservation improvements. In 2010 the District contracted a team of consultants, led by LSA Associates, to prepare a Feasibility Study of restoration and public access improvements at Albany Beach.
1.2 PURPOSE This report is the first step in the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study), a process to examine the feasibility of implementing improvements identified in the General Plan guidelines as permitted and allowable uses and improvements. The purpose of the Existing and Future Conditions Report is to provide clear and comprehensive resource information on the environmental conditions of the Albany Beach study area: natural, cultural, aesthetic and recreational resources; infrastructure; and public safety. Information related to these existing resources will help to direct the next steps in the Feasibility Study. The objectives of the Existing and Future Conditions Report are to provide information sufficient to:
• Analyze site opportunities and constraints • Develop a range of feasible alternatives • Serve as background information to plan improvements and/or new recreational facilities at Albany Beach • Assess potential environmental impacts
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
• Provide background information for maintenance and operation • Inform the public
The majority of the information contained in this report was compiled from the Eastshore State Park General Plan (CDPR et al. 2002a) and the accompanying Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory (CDPR et al. 2002b1). In addition to a review of these and other documents, various interviews, database searches, technical analyses and field surveys were conducted to gather more recent data specific to Albany Beach. These methods are described in the appropriate chapters that follow.
1.3 REPORT PREPARATION LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is the prime consultant and primary editor of this report. LSA planners, biologists and cultural resource specialists prepared the following sections of the report:
• General Information • Infrastructure • Traffic and Circulation • Hazards and Safety Considerations • Maintenance Requirements • Geology and Soils • Biological Resources • Historic and Cultural Resources
Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. (PWA) conducted technical analyses of tidal, shoreline and beach processes and prepared or contributed to the following sections of the report:
• Physical Processes • Hydrology
Baseline Environmental Consultants (Baseline) prepared or contributed to the following sections of the report:
• Hazardous Materials and Site Remediation • Geology and Soils
Vallier Design Associates (VDA) contributed to the following sections of the report:
• Infrastructure • Hazards and Safety Considerations
1 Individual chapters of the Resource Inventory were prepared by different consultants. Later in this report, where information is cited from a specific chapter of the Inventory, the author of the chapter is cited in place of CDPR et al. 2002b.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
• Maintenance Requirements
Katharyn Boyer, PhD. is an Associate Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University’s Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies. Dr. Boyer prepared materials pertaining to eelgrass and contributed to the following section of the report:
• Biological Resources
1.4 PROJECT AND STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION Albany Beach is located on the shoreline in the City of Albany in northwestern Alameda County (Figure 1). The beach is bounded by Buchanan Street and the Albany Peninsula to the north, Golden Gate Fields race track to the east and south, and San Francisco Bay to the west (Figure 2). The Albany Peninsula is a capped landfill with distinct topographic features known locally as – from west to east – the Bulb, the Neck and the Plateau.
The scope of this Feasibility Study includes areas adjacent to Albany Beach that may be included in restoration and public access improvements or have the potential to be affected by such activities. Therefore, the Feasibility Study area (“study area”) as depicted in Figure 2 includes, from north to south: the southern shoreline and trails on the Neck; a portion of the Buchanan Street parking lot, turnaround and trailheads; part of San Francisco Bay; a portion of Golden Gate Fields’ northwestern parking lot; the former Fleming Point Pier; and a bedrock outcrop known as Fleming Point.
The study area is approximately 63 acres and encompasses portions of multiple parcels owned by various public and private entities: the State of California, East Bay Regional Park District, the City of Albany, and Magna Entertainment Corporation (MEC) (Figure 3). The Beach and the subtidal baylands in the study area are co-owned by the State of California and the District, as is the Neck. The District owns the shoreline and intertidal land south of the Beach (including the base of Fleming Point Pier). The City of Albany owns Buchanan Street and the Bulb; therefore, the City possesses a right-of-way along the length of the Neck for access between the two City-owned parcels. All land in the study area associated with Golden Gate Fields is privately owned. Magna International Development (MID) agreed to purchase Golden Gate Fields from MEC in 2010 (FTA 2010); however, parcel records for Alameda County still list the property ownership as MEC Land Holding.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 3 r
Study Area
FIGURE 1
Albany Beach Restoration N and Public Access Feasibility Study 0 10
MILES SOURCE: ©2006 DeLORME. STREET ATLAS USA®2006. Regional Location
P:\EBR1001\g\Figure1_RegionalLocation.cdr (05/07/2010) Albany Plateau Albany Bulb
Albany Neck
Albany Beach
Golden Gate Fields Parking
San Francisco Bay
Fleming Point Pier
Fleming Point
FIGURE 2
Albany Beach Restoration Study Area and Public Access Feasibility Study
0 150 300 FEET Study Area and Landmarks SOURCES: Parcels from Alameda County. Aerial from DigitalGlobe (April 1, 2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Feasibility Study\Figure2_StudyArea_and_Landmarks.mxd (05/6/2010) 066 266900303 066 266500200 STATE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA
066 266900304 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
066 267500200 066 267500100 066 266900202 066 267100100 EAST BAY REGIONAL EAST BAY REGIONAL EAST BAY REGIONAL CITY OF PARK DISTRICT PARK DISTRICT PARK DISTRICT ALBANY
066 266900203 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT CITY OF ALBANY RIGHT OF WAY 066 267500302 066 268000301 EAST BAY REGIONAL LADBROKE LAND HOLDINGS INC PARK DISTRICT
066 267400102 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 066 267500301 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
066 267400101 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 066 267500303 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 066 268000304 MEC LAND HOLDING, INC.
066 267900101 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
066 267900102 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
STUDY AREA PROPERTY OWNERSHIP FIGURE 3 MEC LAND HOLDING, INC. Albany Beach Restoration CITY OF ALBANY and Public Access EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Feasibility Study LADBROKE LAND HOLDINGS INC 0250500 Property Ownership in the FEET STATE OF CALIFORNIA Vicinity of Albany Beach SOURCES: Parcels from Alameda County. Aerial from DigitalGlobe (April 1, 2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Feasibility Study\Figure3_ParcelOwnership.mxd (5/7/2010) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
2.1 HISTORICAL AND CURRENT LAND USE Historically the Albany shoreline was east of where the shoreline and beach are located today. Almost all of the land features in the study area were created in the last 30 to 100 years by placement of fill over bay mud or marshlands. Fleming Point was once an island separated from the East Bay shoreline by Buchanan Marsh (Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002) and is the only shoreline feature in the study area that matches the historic shore alignment. Fleming Point was the site of many industrial uses in the early 1900s, before it was incorporated into the construction of Golden Gate Fields race track in or around 1939. The remains of a water taxi dock that once linked travelers between San Francisco and the Golden Gate Fields race track are visible within the study area just north of Fleming Point.
The Albany landfill (now the Bulb and Neck) was filled between the early 1960s and 1980s (Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002). The result was a nearly 90-degree angle in the shoreline where the peninsula meets Golden Gate Fields. This hardscaped angle is positioned opposite the Golden Gate, where tidal currents enter and exit the Bay. Albany Beach was formed over the last 25 or more years, as sand and sediments from the Bay were deposited and trapped in this corner of the shoreline by waves.
Today, Albany Beach, the Neck and the Bulb are publicly owned lands used daily by hikers, dog walkers, cyclists, photographers, bird watchers, kite boarders, artists, and even squatters. Golden Gate Fields is still in operation for live and televised racing events. The history of the lands in and adjacent to the study area is described in greater detail later in this report (see Section 9.0 Historic and Cultural Resources).
2.2 REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS 2.2.1 Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the McAteer-Petris Act In 1965 the California Legislature passed the McAteer-Petris Act, California Public Resources Code Section 66600, which mandated study of the Bay, preparation of a plan (Bay Plan), and formation of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). BCDC is the federally- designated state coastal management agency for San Francisco Bay and has jurisdiction in the greater San Francisco Bay area to administer the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan. For Eastshore State Park, BCDC jurisdiction includes Bay waters up to the shoreline, as well as the land area between the shoreline and a line 100 feet upland and parallel to the shoreline: BCDC’s 100-foot “shoreline band.” The shoreline is located at the mean high tide line, except in marsh areas, where the shoreline is located at five feet above mean sea level.
The Bay Plan was adopted by the BCDC in 1968, enacted by the California legislature in 1969, and revised in 1998. Since 1998, BCDC has adopted a series of maps for specific areas called the Bay Plan Maps. These Bay Plan Maps are based on the Bay Plan and show how to apply Bay Plan policies
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
to specific areas. The Bay Plan Policies listed with each Bay Plan Map are enforceable policies. Bay Plan Map 4 Central Bay North (reprinted February 2008) is the relevant Bay Plan Map for this study area (Figure 4). This map designates the majority of the Albany Beach study area as “Waterfront Park, Beach.” The Golden Gate Fields (Magna Entertainment Corp) property within the study area has no designation on Map 4.
In all decisions involving the Eastshore State Park lands, BCDC will evaluate projects such as restoration and public access improvements at Albany Beach in light of the McAteer-Petris Act, the San Francisco Bay Plan, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BCDC also is in the process of developing and approving the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan (BCDC 2007). The vision of the Water Trail Plan is to create a network of launch and landing sites, or “trail heads,” to allow people in human-powered boats and beachable sail craft to enjoy the historic, scenic and environmental richness of San Francisco Bay through continuous, multiple-day and single-day trips on the Bay. Albany Beach is identified in the Plan as one of 113 existing and planned launch and destination sites that are recommended as the backbone of the water trail.
2.2.2 California Department of Parks and Recreation The State Park and Recreation Commission named Eastshore State Park and classified it as a State Seashore on December 6, 2002, pursuant to Section 5019.50 of the Public Resources Code. The California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) is charged with managing and operating all state park units. In the case of Eastshore State Park, the East Bay Regional Park District acts as agent for the State in management and operations. Management and operation of potential park improvements at Albany Beach will be subject to the rules and regulations pertaining to state parks. These rules are described in the Eastshore State Park General Plan (CDPR et al. 2002a).
2.2.3 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board In 1967, the California legislature created the State Water Resources Board to protect water quality by setting statewide policy, coordinating and supporting Regional Water Board efforts, and reviewing petitions that contest Regional Board actions. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) is one of nine regional water quality control boards statewide charged with making critical water quality decisions, including setting standards, issuing waste discharge requirements, determining compliance with those requirements, and taking appropriate enforcement actions (California Water Boards fact sheet). The SFRWQCB will review any restoration and public access improvements proposed at Albany Beach for potential water quality impacts and will insure compliance with its closure order affecting the project (see Section 5.0 Hazardous Materials and Site Remediation).
2.2.4 Association of Bay Area Governments The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is a regional planning agency for the nine counties surrounding the Bay. In 1987, State Law established the Bay Trail project to produce a 400-mile recreational “ring around the Bay” with ABAG as the lead agency. The Bay Trail preserves and makes available land around San Francisco Bay for recreational, educational, and aesthetic purposes. The Bay Trail Plan (ABAG 1989) envisions “spine trails” that encircle the Bay; “spur
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 8 r Albany Beach Study Area
FIGURE 4
Albany Beach Restoration N and Public Access Feasibility Study 0 2
MILES SOURCE: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (Reprinted February 2008) Bay Plan Map
P:\EBR1001\g\Figure1_RegionalLocation.cdr (05/07/2010) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
trails” from the spine trails to points of natural, historic or cultural interest along the Bay shoreline; and “connector trails” to recreational opportunities, as well as residential and employment centers inland from the Bay. Current information pertaining to the Bay Trail Project can be accessed on the internet (http://baytrail.abag.ca.gov/).
ABAG and the Bay Trail Project sponsored the San Francisco Bay Trail Project Gap Analysis Study in 2005 to identify gaps in the trail system and develop strategies and actions to overcome the gaps (ABAG 2005). Creating a spur trail from Buchanan Street to the Albany Bulb was identified by the Gap Analysis Study as a short-term project of high benefit. Short-term projects consist of gaps that are expected to be funded and completed within 5 years due to a combination of project readiness, feasibility, cost and benefit. This spur trail was completed circa 1997 (Chaney, personal communication). Closing the trail gap between Golden Gate Fields and Albany Bulb (i.e., Gilman to Buchanan Streets) was identified as a mid-term project of high benefit. Mid-term projects consist of gap segments with more implementation constraints than short-term projects and that are expected to be funded and completed within 6 to 10 years after publication of the Gap Analysis Study (2005). With the Albany Beach feasibility study now underway, the Bay Trail Project administration currently views this gap in the Bay Trail as a short-term project (Huo, personal communication).
2.2.5 East Bay Regional Park District The East Bay Regional Park District (District) develops and operates a regional park system in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. In 1997, the District adopted a Master Plan that is a regional open space plan consistent with state policies for open space planning. The Master Plan identifies the vision and the mission of the District and sets priorities for the future. It also identifies existing and potential regional parks, preserves, recreation areas, shorelines and trails. The Master Plan was adopted before the Eastshore State Park General Plan (see below) was adopted; therefore, the Oakland to Richmond shoreline (i.e., Eastshore State Park), which includes Albany Beach, is identified as a potential Regional Shoreline by the Master Plan. Subsequently, the District adopted an updated Master Plan Map in 2007 that identifies Easthore State Park as existing parkland. The Master Plan defines a Regional Shoreline as an area that provides significant recreational, interpretive, natural, or scenic values on land, water, and tidal areas along the San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The District is preparing an update of the 1997 Master Plan, with anticipated completion in late 2011. Information concerning the Master Plan update can be accessed via the District’s website (http://www.ebparks.org/planning/mp). Master Plan policies and goals relevant to the Albany Beach study area are listed by topic in Appendix A.
The District supports the Bay Trail Plan and has incorporated it into the 1997 Master Plan, the 2007 Master Plan Map, and the 1988 (Measure AA) and 2008 (Measure WW) financing programs. In 2008, the District sponsored a preliminary design of an Interim Bay Trail along the Albany shoreline between Golden Gate Fields and Albany Beach (East Bay Regional Park District 2008). The Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study will consider the preliminary design for this gap in the Bay Trail. In addition to Bay Trail completion, Measure WW provided funds for expansion, restoration and development of access improvements at Eastshore State Park.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 10 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
2.3 GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES, GOALS AND POLICIES 2.3.1 Eastshore State Park General Plan A state park general plan is the primary management document for a unit of the California State Park System, establishing the purpose of the park and management direction for the future (CDPR et al. 2002a). The scope of a State Park general plan is intended to be general in nature, includes broad goals and strategies that define the ultimate purpose and aim of management, and defines specific accomplishments and/or the timeframe for fulfilling those goals.
The Eastshore State Park General Plan adopted in 2002 is intended to guide planning efforts to balance recreation and conservation, protect and enhance the natural resource base, and expand opportunities for public enjoyment of the shoreline setting. The General Plan was a collaborative effort by State Parks, the District, the California State Coastal Conservancy and a team of planners, scientists, engineers and the public, including environmental interest groups, local agencies, recreational users, landowners and local business owners. All components of park planning and development, such as new facilities, environmental enhancements, resource management programs, and interpretive and educational activities must be consistent with the overall vision for the park unit, must clearly relate to each other in a comprehensive and coordinated manner, and be consistent with the environmental values of the site. Policies and guidelines of the General Plan regulate land use at Albany Beach, Albany Neck and subtidal areas co-owned by the State of California and the District are regulated by the policies and guidelines of the General Plan. The Albany Shoreline General Plan Management Zone designates two land uses at Albany Beach: conservation and recreation. The General Plan Management Zone also identifies acceptable improvement projects for Albany Beach, such as dune enhancement and expansion, eelgrass protection and enhancement, and beach/bay access enhancement. General Plan goals and policies relevant to existing and future conditions in the Albany Beach study area are identified by topic in Table A-1 (see Appendix A).
2.3.2 City of Albany General Plan Eastshore State Park lands, such as Albany Beach, that are co-owned by the State of California and the District are not subject to the City of Albany General Plan or Municipal Code, including zoning. However, the Albany Bulb is owned by the City and the public has access to Albany Bulb and Beach via a City right-of-way along Buchanan Street (Figure 3). In the interest of compatibility with the adjacent jurisdiction, this Feasibility Study acknowledges the City’s adopted policies and includes a review of the City’s General Plan. The City of Albany updated its General Plan in 1992 to provide a current and useful policy guide for planning and decision making over a 20-year period (1990-2010).
The City’s updated General Plan (1992) includes five Elements that address seven topics required by State Law: Land Use; Circulation; Housing; Conservation, Recreation, and Open Space; and Community Health and Safety. All City General Plan goals and policies relevant to existing and future conditions in the Albany Beach study area are identified by topic in Appendix A. The primary City policies of relevance to the Albany Beach Feasibility Study are listed below:
• Work with all appropriate landowners, agencies, and citizens groups to implement the Bay Trail Plan along the Albany shoreline
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 11 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
• Ensure adequate protection of wildlife and vegetation resources when developing the Bay Trail alignment • Require that public access to the shoreline and Albany Point (Bulb) be part of any future waterfront development plans, and that multi-modal access be coordinated with state and regional park and open space plans • Continue to work with the state, cities, and other appropriate agencies to develop the former Albany landfill site into a state waterfront park • Work closely with the state, cities, and other appropriate agencies to complete the acquisition, planning and development of the project site • Assure that the planning for the project site is consistent with the City’s conceptual plan for that portion in the City of Albany
2.4 MUNICIPAL CODES, ZONING AND OTHER LOCAL PLANS AND STUDIES 2.4.1 City of Albany Municipal Code Albany Beach and other Eastshore State Park lands co-owned by the District and the State of California are not subject to City municipal codes; however, this Feasibility Study acknowledges and reviews such policies that are relevant to the study area. The Code of the City of Albany (1988; updated through October 5, 2009) and the official zoning map designate the areas within the Albany Beach Feasibility Study area as “Waterfront” (or WF District), the purpose of which is “to provide for the water oriented uses called for in the Waterfront Master Plan, as well as the open space conservation, parks and recreation, and commercial recreation uses outlined in the General Plan.” Permitted uses include gaming and associated uses as authorized and regulated through a 1994 Development Agreement. Conditionally permitted uses included: commercial recreation; waterfront and sports-related commercial sales and services; restaurant/bars; commercial parking lots; marinas and boat launching ramps and related uses; parks, golf courses, open space areas and other recreational facilities; and public utility and public service structures and installations. The zoning also codifies the requirements of Measure C, the Citizens Waterfront Approval Initiative that was approved by voters in June 1990. This measure requires that any amendment to the existing General Plan waterfront land use designations, waterfront master plan or other specific plan for the waterfront area, will require passage of a ballot measure approved by a majority of the city’s voters.
In 1995, the City of Albany submitted a proposal to the District that was intended to serve as a statement of the City’s recommendations and guidance for the development of the Albany portion of the Eastshore State Park project. The proposal was consistent with Albany’s 1992 General Plan and was incorporated into the development of the 2002 Eastshore State Park General Plan.
2.4.2 Voices to Vision For many years the City of Albany and its residents have discussed plans for the Albany Waterfront, which includes City-owned lands and the privately held lands where Golden Gate Fields is located. In March 2008, the City hired consultants to develop and facilitate a process to educate and engage residents in identifying a shared vision for the future of the waterfront. The result of this process is
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 12 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Voices to Vision, a comprehensive report published in 2010 that summarizes the public engagement process and provides guidelines for realizing the community vision for the waterfront. These guidelines do not override current zoning or previously approved planning documents, such as the Eastshore State Park General Plan, but rather reflect a vision that appears to be supported by a majority of residents (FTA 2010). Voices to Vision includes eleven (11) illustrative site concepts, several of which overlap with the Albany Beach Feasibility Study area. Six of the site concepts include some kind of proposed activity and/or redevelopment of the Fleming Point Pier for public access. All eleven concepts include completion of the Bay Trail along the shoreline between Gilman Street in Berkeley and Buchanan Street in Albany.
2.4.3 Berkeley/Albany Ferry Terminal Study The San Francisco Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) is considering operating new ferry service between the San Francisco Ferry Building and the Berkeley/Albany waterfront. The WETA identified four potential ferry terminal sites on the East Bay shoreline, two in Berkeley and two in Albany. Although WETA has no jurisdiction in Eastshore State Park, one of the potential terminal sites considered is within the Albany Beach Feasibility Study area, at the old Fleming Point Pier south of Albany Beach. The WETA released a Draft Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) in 2008, which determined that developing a ferry terminal at either location in Albany would produce multiple environmental and traffic impacts that would be difficult or impossible to mitigate (URS 2008). The Draft EIS/EIR also determined that the two terminal locations proposed in Berkeley would not produce unavoidable impacts, except for potential traffic impacts that may be difficult to mitigate. The preferred terminal site at the Berkeley marina fishing pier was approved by the WETA board of directors on April 2, 2009 (WETA undated Berkeley Ferry Fact Sheet) and by the Berkeley City Council on November 17, 2009 (City of Berkeley website, accessed May 13, 2010).
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 13 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 INTRODUCTION This section describes current and planned public access, recreational structures, water supply, sanitary sewer, storm water, electrical and gas, telecommunications systems, and solid waste management in the study area. Currently there are relatively few improvements, facilities or utilities in the study area (Figure 5). Utilities nearest to study area (Figure 6) were documented by the Eastshore State Park General Plan (CDPR et al. 2002b). Potential public access improvements at Albany Beach may require development of water, sewer, and possibly electrical or alternative energy services.
3.1.1 Relevant Plan Policies Guidelines, goals and policies relevant to infrastructure in the study area are summarized below. A complete list of the guidelines, goals and policies relevant to this section is provided on pages 1-6 of Table A-1 (Appendix A).
Eastshore State Park General Plan. The Park General Plan includes several guidelines and goals for recreation and visitor-serving facilities that pertain to infrastructure. Aesthetics goals and guidelines are included, several of which address infrastructure such as lighting, building height, and landscaping. Finally, park operations and capacity guidelines are addressed. One guideline (OPER-17) calls for use of reclaimed water, where feasible, in landscape irrigation, fire protection, toilet flushing and outdoor water features. Another guideline (OPER-1) calls for preparation of specific project plans for each management zone or sub-zone (in this case, Albany Beach is considered a sub-zone of Eastshore State Park). The specific project plans should include resource surveys and take into account potential impacts of facilities and visitation increases on the resource base, the relationship of the new facilities to those already existing. This Feasibility Study will be a key component of the specific plans for the Albany Beach sub-zone.
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Master Plan includes several goals for providing appropriate facilities for visitors in a manner compatible with other District goals, such as habitat restoration. Guidelines also are provided for coordination with other agencies and organizations involved in planning for jointly managed facilities and/or adjacent properties.
City of Albany General Plan. The City General Plan includes several goals and policies that emphasize collaboration among various stakeholders in the planning and development of infrastructure and public access at the Albany shoreline. One policy requires assurance that the planning for Eastshore State Park is consistent with the City’s conceptual plan for the Albany portion of the Eastshore State Park. Another policy requires that the scenic value of the Albany shoreline within the City’s jurisdiction be further preserved by prohibiting construction of any building or structure within 100 feet of the shoreline, at a minimum.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 14 Albany Neck Buchanan Street Turnaround
Albany Beach
Golden Gate Fields Parking
Study Area Trash Bin Bollards FIGURE 5 Parcel Boundary Interpretive Signage Chain Link Fence (See Figure 3) Albany Beach Restoration "Herons" Sculpture Rail and Cable Fence and Public Access Bench Feasibility Study Portable Toilet Wind Shelter/Public Art - "The Cove" 0 62.5 125 Bicycle Rack FEET Bulletin Board Existing Infrastructure SOURCES: Parcels from Alameda County. Aerial from DigitalGlobe (April 1, 2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Feasibility Study\Figure5_ExistingInfrastructure.mxd (9/21/2010) RICHMOND ALBANY
Albany Mudflats
Albany Albany Albany Neck Plateau Albany Point Bulb Buchana n S tr ee t Interstate 80
Albany Beach Marin Ave.
Golden 6th Street Gate Fields
Fleming Point
Codornices Creek
ALBANY BERKELEY Gilman Street
Study Area Utilities Water Main FIGURE 6 City Limit Storm Drain 1-2" Water Main (Length Estimated) Electricity Primary Waste Water Line Albany Beach Restoration Natural Gas Line Nearest Power and Water Hook-ups on Private Property and Public Access 0 500 1000 Feasibility Study FEET Nearest Utilities Outside Study Area SOURCE: LSA (2001); USDA NAIP Aerial Imagery (2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Feasibility Study\Figure6_UtilitiesOutsideStudyArea.mxd (9/21/2010) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
3.2 ROADS AND TRAILS Only one public road provides direct access to the Albany Beach area. The Buchanan Street Extension provides a two-lane paved road with direct vehicular access to Albany Beach from the interchange with Interstate 580. The western paved portion terminates at a one-way loop turnaround that is located within the project study area. The Extension continues westward into the study area as an unpaved single lane road that serves as a trail and provides access for authorized vehicles. Just east of the turnaround there is limited on-street 2-hour parking for users of the trail system at the Beach, Bulb, Neck and Plateau. The turnaround is located on land owned by the City of Albany and the parking spaces are located on privately owned land. No additional direct access via other public roads is planned.
The City of Albany constructed a spur of the Bay Trail (WRT 2001) that extends west along the Buchanan Street Extension right-of-way and terminates in the project study area at a vista point that overlooks Albany Beach and San Francisco Bay. From this point, two unpaved trails provide access parallel to one another along the Neck to the end of the Bulb for hikers, dogwalkers and cyclists. These two trails, one of which is the unpaved portion of the Buchanan Street Extension, also provide access for authorized vehicles such as waste management trucks and law enforcement patrol cars. The Eastshore State Park General Plan (CDPR 2002a) identifies the Bay Trail spur to be extended west to the end of Albany Bulb, and to maintain and enhance existing unimproved trails along the Neck and Bulb.
Currently, Albany Beach can be accessed on foot via any number of unimproved footpaths from the Buchanan Street parking lot, the Golden Gate Fields parking lot, or the vista point on City property that overlooks the Bay. The Eastshore State Park General Plan identifies installation of boardwalks and protective fencing through the dunes to guide pedestrian access between the beach and the parking lot while protecting habitats identified for restoration. The General Plan also identifies extending the Bay Trail spine along the Beach between the Buchanan Street parking lot and Gilman Street (south of the study area). This spine of the Bay Trail would provide indirect access to Albany Beach from Gilman Street if constructed.
3.3 STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES Few structures and facilities are located in the study area (Figure 5). At the Buchanan Street parking lot and trailhead, visitors have access to one portable toilet, a bulletin board, one bench, several trash receptacles (see Section 3.9 Solid Waste Management), and commissioned public art in the form of a steel sculpture titled “Herons” by artist Mark Edward Canepa. The vista point at the terminus of the Bay Trail spur provides two benches, a bicycle rack, interpretive signage, and several trash receptacles. No picnic tables are located in the study area. Just east of the vista point is a commissioned public art installation that serves as a subterranean wind shelter known as “The Cove,” designed by local artist and Albany resident Carlo Ferretti and constructed in 1999 (Whittaker 2003).
Three types of fencing are located in the study area. A 3-foot high cable and rail fence parallels the Bay Trail spur all the way out to the vista point overlooking Albany Beach. Rows of 3-foot high bollards function as a barrier to restrict vehicle access at the Buchanan Street turnaround. A long line of bollards running north to south separates the Golden Gate Fields parking lot located inside the study area from another Golden Gate Fields parking lot east of the study area. A 6-foot high chain
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 17 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
link fence separates the Golden Gate Fields parking lot from the Buchanan Street turnaround in the study area. A narrow opening in the chain link fence permits pedestrians and cyclists to pass through.
The Eastshore State Park General Plan (CDPR 2002a) identifies the following potential improvements to structures and facilities at the Albany Beach area:
• New restroom facility (assumes unsewered vault toilets) • Boardwalks and protective fencing through the dunes • New water access at the south end of the Beach • Enhanced water access (assumes stairs or ramp) along the shoreline on the south side of the Neck (also assumes no vehicle access to this point) • Replacement of surface hazards along south side of Neck with new shoreline protection
The City of Albany anticipates providing an additional portable toilet at the Bulb in the near future (Cunningham, personal communication); however, a toilet at the Bulb does not satisfy the need for a new restroom facility at the beach. According to the Park General Plan, new fencing should allow for wildlife movement but should discourage dogs and people from entering enhanced habitat areas.
3.4 WATER SUPPLY The East Bay Municipal Water District (EBMUD) supplies water to several locations in Eastshore State Park; however, not directly to Albany Beach (Figure 6). The nearest known publicly owned water main is under Buchanan Street, west of I-80 (LSA 2001b; Mark Swearingen, personal communication). The exact length and location of this main could not be determined at the time of this writing. The City of Albany is aware of a 1- to 2-inch diameter PVC irrigation line (above- ground) that is connected to this water main. The irrigation line parallels the north side of Buchanan Street, adjacent to landscaping that dates back to construction of the Bay Trail spur in the late 1990s (Chaney, personal communication). The City is in the process of inspecting, repairing and mapping this irrigation line. The western reach of the irrigation line is estimated to be approximately 400 feet east of the turnaround at the end of Buchanan Street (Wolcott, personal communication). The City may extend the irrigation line for additional landscaping at “The Cove” in the near future. There is no reclaimed or recycled water supply to Albany Beach. There is potential for park facilities in the vicinity of Albany Beach to be served through connections with the existing pipelines used by Golden Gate Fields (LSA 2001b) or with the existing irrigation line at Buchanan Street.
3.5 WASTEWATER/SANITARY SEWER SERVICE Currently no existing facilities require sewer lines or any wastewater infrastructure in the vicinity of Albany Beach or along the Buchanan Street Extension. The Eastshore State Park General Plan cites Albany City staff as having indicated that construction of any new facilities in this area would be very expensive. If any facilities are proposed in the area, an alternative to new construction would be to connect to the existing wastewater facilities that serve Golden Gate Fields. Golden Gate Fields has their own dedicated wastewater sewer line that runs beneath Interstate 80 from their stable area to Berkeley (Figure 6). The existing lines would have capacity to accommodate additional facilities that
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 18 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
are typical of regional shoreline parks (e.g., interpretive center, shower and restroom facilities) (LSA 2001b).
3.6 STORM WATER No storm drains could be located in the Albany Beach study area. There are no existing or planned storm water facilities at the Albany Point and Albany Bulb areas or along the Buchanan Street Extension (LSA 2001b; Chaney, personal communication). There are at least six curb-and-gutter storm drains on Buchanan Street at or near the I-80 westbound on-ramp (Figure 6).
Detailed information regarding storm water in the study area is very limited. Based on site reconnaissance and field observations it appears that storm water runoff is restricted to flows generated locally on the site (parking lot and trail zones) (see Section 7.4 Hydrology). Most storm water runoff appears to accumulate and flow over impervious areas to low-lying zones in the northwest corner of the Golden Gate Fields parking lot. These areas are regularly subject to inundation and shallow standing water. The low-lying areas behind the dunes at Albany Beach drain into a simple network of shallow swales which convey storm water from the site into the dunes. A small wetland feature (see Section 8.5.1 Wetlands and Other Waters) retains most flows although large events may flow through the dunes and outlet on the beach. Wave overtopping is anticipated to contribute to flooding in low-lying areas during especially large storm events (see Section 7.7.7 Wave Runup and Flooding). Estimates for runoff volume were not calculated as part of this evaluation.
3.7 ELECTRICAL/GAS The study area has no existing or planned electricity or natural gas service points. Energy service points serving Golden Gate Fields are located within the City of Berkeley (Figure 6) (LSA 2001b).
3.8 TELECOMMUNICATIONS There is no wire-based telephone service to the study area. The nearest land line available services Golden Gate Fields. The nearest cellular telephone towers are located on the 500 block of Cleveland Avenue, approximately one half mile northeast of Albany Beach, in the City of Albany (Cunningham, personal communication). Wireless telephone service in the area currently is provided by AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.
3.9 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT The District and the City of Albany are responsible for the collection and disposal of non-hazardous solid waste from the study area. The District provides and services at least three garbage bins in the study area. Two are secured to the cable and rail fence at the vista point, and another is located next to the portable toilet at the Buchanan Street parking lot. All non-hazardous solid waste from these receptacles is transported by truck to a dumpster at Point Isabel Regional Shoreline. The dumpster is serviced by a private company, Richmond Sanitation Service (Takei, personal communication April 21, 2010). The City of Albany provides and services at least four garbage bins along the trail between the Buchanan Street parking lot and the vista point overlooking the Beach (Takei, personal communication April 19, 2010). Service of the City’s garbage bins is contracted to Waste
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 19 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Management Services. Potential public access improvements (e.g., new water access at the south end of the Beach) would benefit from additional solid waste receptacles.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 20 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
4.0 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION Access and circulation, as well as safety, are major considerations of the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study. The following discussion provides a summary of vehicular and bicycle transportation facilities as well as access through the study area via Buchanan Street. An expanded study area was used for analyzing traffic and circulation (Figure 7).
4.1.1 Relevant Plan Policies Guidelines, goals and policies relevant to traffic and circulation in the study area are summarized below. A complete list of the guidelines, goals and policies relevant to this section is provided on pages 6-8 of Table A-1 (Appendix A).
Eastshore State Park General Plan. The Park General Plan includes one goal and 21 guidelines for planning and maintaining adequate circulation in the park units. Two guidelines of particular relevance to Albany Beach relate to the Bay Trail. One provides that, to the extent feasible, the trail system will be designed and constructed to provide universal access. Another guideline recognizes the Bay Trail as the park’s primary non-vehicular transportation corridor and an important means of unifying public use areas within the non-contiguous portions of Eastshore State Park.
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Master Plan emphasizes the provision of access to parklands and trails to suit the level of expected use. The Plan also encourages additional access points to parklands and creating connections among regional trail systems.
City of Albany General Plan. The City General Plan includes two goals and four policies related to traffic and circulation in and around the Albany Beach area. Similar to the other two plans, the City’s General Plan emphasizes universal, safe access and enhanced bicycle routes.
Alameda County Congestion Management Program. The Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP) establishes performance thresholds for roadways designated on the CMP. Designated CMP routes in the vicinity of the project are I-80/I50, San Pablo Avenue (SR-123), and Ashby Avenue (SR-13). The Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP requires reporting and analysis of projects that require a General Plan Amendment, or are subject to an Environmental Impact Report.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 21 Albany Lands Parking Turnaround
Bu chan an S tre et
Albany Beach Golden Gate I-580/ Fields I-80 Parking Interchange
LEGEND FIGURE 7 Existing and Future Parking Study Area Albany Beach Restoration Intersection Study Area and Public Access Feasibility Study
0 175 350 FEET Traffic and Circulation Study Areas SOURCES: Parcels from Alameda County. Aerial from DigitalGlobe (April 1, 2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Feasibility Study\Figure7_TrafficCirculationStudyArea.mxd (6/28/2010) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
4.2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (1) Regional Access Routes. Regional access in the vicinity of the project site is provided via the following routes:
Interstate 580. Interstate 580 (I-580) connects the East Bay area of San Francisco Bay with Marin County to the north and the San Joaquin Valley region to the east. Within the project study area, I-580 and Interstate 80 (I-80) are the same freeway from Buchanan Street to the north, to south of Powell Street to the south. Within the expanded study area, I-580 is oriented in a north-south direction and would provide direct access to the project site via its interchange at Buchanan Street.
Interstate 80. As previously mentioned, I-80 and I-580 are the same freeway from Buchanan Street to the north to south of Powell Street to the south. I-80 connects the San Francisco area with the Sacramento and Lake Tahoe regions to the east. Within the expanded study area, I-80 is oriented in a north-south direction, and would provide direct access to the project site via its interchange at Buchanan Street.
(2) Local Access Routes. Local access in the vicinity of the project site is provided via the roadways discussed below.
Buchanan Street. Buchanan Street is a four-lane undivided east-west street in the City of Albany. Buchanan Street provides access to the project site from its interchange with I-580/I-80. West of I-580/I-80, the Buchanan Street Extension is a multi-lane road that provides direct access to the parking lots of Golden Gate Fields, a horse racing track located adjacent to Albany Beach. The lane configuration of the road varies depending on the use of the existing race track. Limited public on-street parallel parking is permitted on the north side of Buchanan Street, providing approximately 60 unmarked spaces. At the western terminus of Buchanan Street and perpendicular to the chain link fence that separates Buchanan Street from Golden Gate Fields, 43 marked stalls are provided for users of the Albany Waterfront. These 43 spaces are located on Golden Gate Fields property and have been made available for public use by an informal agreement between Golden Gate Fields and the City of Albany. There is no agreement in effect that guarantees the availability of the parking spaces for public use in perpetuity (Chaney, personal communication).
Gilman Street. Gilman Street is a two lane east-west street in the City of Berkeley. Gilman Street connects the project site with the I-580/I-80 interchange via a private drive aisle within the Golden Gate Fields parking lot. Existing land uses along Gilman Street, between I-580/I-80 and San Pablo Avenue, include mainly industrial and retail/ commercial land uses. Most of the intersections along Gilman Street are unsignalized.
San Pablo Avenue. San Pablo Avenue is also known as State Route 123 (SR 123). San Pablo Avenue is a major north-south street located east of I-580/I-80 with four lanes and left-turn pockets at major intersections. San Pablo Avenue connects the cities of Richmond, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland.
(3) Bicycle Access Routes. Bicycle access to the project site is discussed below.
Buchanan Bicycle and Pedestrian Path. An off-street bicycle path is provided on the north side of Buchanan Street from Pierce Street west to Albany Point.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 23 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Waterfront Bicycle Path. This portion of the Bay Trail travels north from the Buchanan Bicycle and Pedestrian Path along I-580 and then west along Central Avenue in the City of El Cerrito.
4.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS An analysis of the existing and future traffic conditions was prepared for the Eastshore State Park General Plan (2002). For a focused study of the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study, LSA reexamined the freeway ramp intersections of I-580 SB Ramps/Buchanan Street and I-580 NB Ramps/Buchanan Street. LSA contracted with a qualified traffic data collection company, All Traffic Data, to collect intersection turn movement counts in April 2010 for both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods on a day when Golden Gate Fields offered live racing.
Levels of service (LOS) for these intersections were calculated using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM; Transportation Research Board 2000) parameters within TRAFFIX version 8.0 level of service software. The Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP) defines LOS E as the threshold for acceptable intersection operations at the two freeway ramp intersections. As shown in Table 4.1 below, both intersections meet the level of service standard. The complete LOS computation report is provided in Appendix B.
Table 4.1: Existing Level of Service Summary
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay Delay Intersection LOS (Sec.) LOS (Sec.) 1. I-580 SB Ramps/Buchanan St. B 17.3 B 17.9 2. I-580 NB Ramps/Buchanan St. C 30.1 E 75.8
In the interest of evaluating existing parking utilization, All Traffic Data collected parking counts during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The parking survey was conducted on a day that Golden Gate Fields was not open for business so that only vehicles parked for use of the Albany Lands were observed. In addition to the vehicles parked on-street and at the west end of Buchanan Street, parked vehicles in the northwest corner of the Golden Gate Fields parking lot (immediately east of Albany Beach) were also counted. The highest number of parked vehicles counted in the a.m. peak period was 14 vehicles. The highest number of parked vehicles counted in parking lots and on- street in the p.m. peak period was 33 vehicles. A pneumatic counting tube was placed across Buchanan Street to count the number of trips during these periods. Based on the number of inbound and outbound trips, LSA determined that the parking spaces turn over an average of 3.4 times per hour.
In addition to determining the level of service at the freeway ramps, existing traffic counts were used to determine the distribution of traffic destined for Albany Lands. This analysis revealed that more traffic originated from Buchanan Street (east of I-580/I-80) in the p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. The analysis also revealed that, for both peak hours, more Albany Lands trips used the
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 24 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
northbound I-580 ramps than the southbound I-580 ramps. All data from the traffic counts are provided in Appendix C.
4.4 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LSA examined the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), the Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP), and the City of Albany Circulation Improvement Program (CIP) and did not identify any planned roadway improvements affecting automobile travel to Albany Lands. The City of Albany CIP does contain one project affecting the Buchanan Bicycle and Pedestrian Path, known as the Buchanan Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Project. The goal of this project is to close the current gap between the Marin Avenue bike lane and the Buchanan Street bike path (Marin Avenue is the continuation of Buchanan Street east of San Pablo Avenue).
The existing parking spaces support activities of relatively short duration on the trails (i.e., photography and dog walking). The existing parking spaces are not fully utilized, leaving capacity for increased visits to Albany Lands subsequent to planned improvements. If the number of utilized parking spaces doubled this would result in 14 additional vehicles in the a.m. peak hour and 33 additional vehicles in the p.m. peak hour. Applying the average parking turn over of 3.4 times per hour results in 48 additional trips in the a.m. peak hour and 112 in the p.m. peak hour.
Beach activities, particularly non-motorized water craft access would be enhanced by providing additional parking spaces in convenient proximity to Albany Beach. Parking spaces closer to the beach would likely have a longer turn over than the existing parking spaces that support trail activities. For this analysis LSA utilized a conservative estimate that 21 additional parking spaces east of Albany Beach would turn over each hour and therefore result in an additional 21 trips in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The total new trips are therefore estimated to be 69 in the a.m. peak hour and 133 in the p.m. peak hour, if additional parking is provided. Table 4.2 below, illustrates this calculation.
Table 4.2: Parking Space Trip Generation
Trail Beach Total A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Additional Parking Spaces Used 14 33 21 21 35 54 Turn-over Rate per Hour 3.4 3.4 1.0 1.0 Round Trips 48 112 21 21 69 133
LSA distributed these additional project trips based on the distribution determined from existing traffic counts. Table 4.3 displays the resulting intersection LOS. As shown in Table 4.3, both intersections continue to operate at LOS E or better for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 25 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Table 4.3: Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary
Existing Existing Plus Project A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour Delay Delay Delay Intersection LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS (Sec.) LOS (Sec.) LOS (Sec.) 1. I-580 SB Ramps/Buchanan St. B 17.3 B 17.9 B 18.5 C 20.6 2. I-580 NB Ramps/Buchanan St. C 30.1 E 75.8 C 30.6 E 77.3
4.5 ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT AC Transit provides bus service in the East Bay area. The routes closest to Albany Lands are: 25, L, and Z. Route Z has only two buses in the morning with stops at Buchanan Street and Pierce Street. Route L is also of limited use with eight westbound buses in the morning and thirteen eastbound buses in the afternoon and evening. Route 25 has the most utility with buses operating every half hour from 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on weekdays and every hour from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends. The closest stop for visitors to Albany Lands is near the intersection of Pierce and Buchanan Streets. Route 25 also connects to both the El Cerrito Plaza BART and Berkeley BART stations.
Figure 8 displays bikeways within the City of Albany. The Ohlone Greenway is an off-street bicycle and pedestrian path that connects to BART stations at El Cerrito Plaza and North Berkeley. Off-street bicycle paths are also provided parallel to Buchanan Street from Pierce Street to the Albany shoreline and parallel to Marin Avenue from Stannage Avenue into the City of Berkeley. The waterfront off- street bicycle path travels roughly parallel to and west of I-580 and connects to the Buchanan Street path. The City is seeking a Safe Routes to Transit Grant to close the gap between the Marin Avenue and Buchanan Street bicycle paths (City of Albany website, accessed May 4, 2010). Closure of this gap would improve the currently good bicycle access by facilitating bicycle travel between BART and the Albany shoreline. Figure 8 also illustrates a proposed bicycle and pedestrian (Class I) path along the Albany shoreline between Albany Beach and Golden Gate Fields.
4.6 CONCLUSIONS The forecasts used to determine future trip generation as a result of the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study (i.e., full utilization of a new parking lot east of Albany Beach and the doubling of existing parking utilization) represent a conservative, worst case scenario. Even in this scenario, the project is not forecast to impact the nearby intersections of I-580 SB Ramps/Buchanan Street or I-580 NB Ramps/Buchanan Street. Increases in vehicular traffic will not impact bicycle traffic because of the off-street bicycle path provided adjacent to Buchanan Street. As a result, access to Albany Beach can be provided by the existing transportation infrastructure on and adjacent to the project site.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 26 Albany Beach
FIGURE 8
Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access N Feasibility Study 0 125
FEET City of Albany Existing SOURCE: Albany Bicycle Master Plan, Cerrito Creek Bay Trail Connector, Codornices Creek Trail Improvements Plan and Proposed Bikeways
P:\EBR1001\g\Figure8_Existing&ProposedBikeways.cdr (6/24/2010) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
5.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND SITE REMEDIATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION Based on a history of industrial use and bay fill, the study area has risks related to hazardous materials. Potential restoration and public access improvements may require additional assessments regarding public safety risks from hazardous materials. This section describes the past and present use of hazardous materials at Fleming Point and bay filling elsewhere along the Albany shoreline.
5.1.1 Relevant Plan Policies Guidelines, goals and policies relevant to hazardous materials and site remediation in the study area are summarized below. A complete list of the guidelines, goals and policies relevant to this section is provided on page 8 of Table A-1 (Appendix A).
Eastshore State Park General Plan. The Park General Plan includes one operational guideline concerning hazardous materials and site remediation. If design, improvement, and/or development plans involve onsite reuse and/or offsite disposal of soil, available chemical data should be reviewed for those specific locations. Additional testing in those areas may be warranted to evaluate the suitability of that soil for onsite reuse and/or offsite disposal. Evaluation of the data should include consideration of the existing Regional Park Preliminary Remediation Goals developed for the project site, as well as the planned future use of that soil.
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The 1997 East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan does not include policies directly relevant to hazardous materials and site remediation.
City of Albany General Plan. The City General Plan includes one goal and three guidelines relevant to hazardous materials and site remediation. The City’s goal is to reduce the exposure of present and future Albany residents and workers to hazardous materials.
5.2 SITE HISTORY A historical Coastal Survey map showed that in 1826, the current Albany shoreline was part of San Francisco Bay. The nearest land was an island to the southeast on the current Golden Gate Fields property (Tetra Tech 1994). That island, now part of Golden Gate Fields, was used in the early 1900s for an explosives company, then the San Francisco Chemical Company, which manufactured acids for industrial and laboratory use (Tetra Tech 1994; Sanborn Map Company 1911). The City of Berkeley operated a municipal waste incinerator on Fleming Point intermittently from 1908 to 1923 (Pettitt 1973).
Based on aerial photographs and available historical records, the current shoreline configuration in the study area was created with artificial fill, primarily construction debris, during the late 1960s (Tetra Tech 1994). With the exception of remnants of two dilapidated piers at Fleming Point, no
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 28 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
structures of historic use have been identified in the study area. Therefore, the primary hazardous materials concerns from historical uses in the study area would be related to contaminants that could have been present in the fill placed in this area. Soils at nearby sites along the San Francisco Bay shoreline in the vicinity have been found to contain elevated concentrations of metals and organic chemical contaminants, assumed to have originated in contaminated fill (RWQCB 1998).
5.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 5.3.1 Phase I and II Sampling A Phase I environmental site assessment was prepared for a portion of the study area in 1993. It included the collection and analysis of five surface soil samples: three from Fleming Point, and two from the Albany Beach shoreline (Figure 9). The results found low concentrations of diesel and gasoline in each of the five samples and one polycyclic biphenyl (PCB) compound in three of the five samples (location FPB-1 at Fleming Point and locations FPB-3 and FPB-4 at Albany Beach; Figure 8). Metals were characterized as generally low, although elevated concentrations of lead were found in samples from Fleming Point (locations FPB-1 and FPB-2). Soluble lead from location FPB-1 in this area exceeded the California Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC), indicating that this soil, once excavated, would require handling and disposal as a hazardous waste (Tetra Tech 1994).
A Phase II investigation was conducted to characterize the extent of lead contamination in the Fleming Point area (Tetra Tech 1994; full report provided in Appendix D). It included the drilling and sampling of four soil borings and collection of ten surface soil samples (Figure 10). Deeper samples contained low concentrations of lead (6 to 27 mg/kg), well below applicable screening thresholds for unrestricted land use. Surface samples had higher concentrations (15 to 510 mg/kg). Three of the ten surface samples contained soluble lead in excess of the STLC.
The Phase II report concluded that lead-contaminated soil was located within a 20-foot wide strip of land directly adjacent to the west edge of the Golden Gate Fields parking area (Tetra Tech 1994). Subsurface soil did not appear to be affected by lead.
5.4 RWQCB ORDER 98-072 In July 1998, under the terms of the March 1997 land transfer agreement between Catellus Development Corporation (Catellus), the East Bay Regional Park District, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) issued Order No 98-072, which adopted Site Cleanup Requirements for six properties along the waterfront of areas later designated within Eastshore State Park: the Berkeley Brickyard, Berkeley Meadow, Berkeley North Basin, Albany Plateau, Point Isabel, and Hoffman Marsh.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 29 FIGURE 9
Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access N Feasibility Study 0 220
FEET 1993 Phase I Sampling Locations SOURCE: Tetra Tech 1994 at Fleming Point
P:\EBR1001\g\Figure9_1993PhaseISamplingLocations.cdr (06/24/2010) FIGURE 10
Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access N Feasibility Study 0 160
FEET 1994 Phase II Sampling Locations SOURCE: Tetra Tech 1994 at Fleming Point
P:\EBR1001\g\Figure10_1994PhaseIISamplingLocations.cdr (06/24/2010) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Albany Beach was not part of the area subject to RWQCB Order 98-072. Fleming Point and Albany Neck were included in the area designated as the Albany Plateau, which is subject to the Order. The adjoining Albany Bulb (not part of the Albany Beach Feasibility Study) was investigated and remediated under a separate RWQCB Order. Prior to issuance of the Order, a Remediation and Risk Management Plan (RRMP) for the East Shore Properties was prepared under RWQCB oversight (ERM and EKI 1998). The document summarized previous environmental sampling reports for the six properties.
The RRMP included human health and ecological risk assessments for reuse of the properties as parkland. It used US EPA residential Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) to screen laboratory data, modified for the potential lower exposure durations typical of regional parks. These human health risk screening levels were compared to various ecological risk screening levels, and the most conservative screening concentrations were retained for the risk assessment. Data previously collected were compared against these action levels, including data collected at Fleming Point during the Phase I and II investigations, described above.
Sampling on the Albany Plateau, including Fleming Point, included 244 soil samples, four groundwater grab samples, multiple groundwater sampling events from eleven monitoring wells, and one sediment sample (ERM and EKI 1998). Soils at ten locations, including two at Fleming Point exceeded action levels for the metals arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, and/or zinc. One of these ten locations, approximately 750 feet northeast of the study area, also exceeded the action level for PCBs. The RRMP concluded that concentrations of metals and other contaminants were localized and linked to contaminants in the fill materials, as no industrial activities are known to have taken place on the Albany Plateau parcels (ERM and EKI 1998). Based on the sampling data collected in the RRMP, RWQCB concluded that the extent of significant soil exceedances has been adequately defined on the Albany Plateau and other properties subject to the Order (RWQCB 1998).
Individual groundwater samples from the Albany Plateau contained petroleum hydrocarbons such as gasoline, zinc, mercury, and the semi-volatile organic compound bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate above action levels, but the RRMP concluded that these sporadic exceedances were not representative of groundwater quality near the Albany Plateau, and therefore did not require remediation (ERM and EKI 1998). The RWQCB concurred with this finding (RWQCB 1998).
Sediments were not included in the Order’s cleanup requirements. Results of previous studies concluded that sediments at the Albany Plateau and other properties subject to the Order were typical of sediments encountered in the San Francisco Bay and did not require cleanup. The RWQCB reserved the right to address sediment quality in the future through a broader watershed quality approach (RWQCB 1998).
Under the Order, Catellus was required to perform remediation at seven sites at the Albany Plateau: six sites due to exceedances of metals action levels and one site due to exceedances of metals and PCB action levels. Two areas at Fleming Point with elevated lead concentrations were covered with clean fill material and erosion controls measures were implemented (ERM and EKI 1998). Excavation of metals-contaminated soils at two locations on the Albany Neck in the study area were also part of these remedial activities (ERM and EKI 1998).
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 32 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
5.5 DISCUSSION Land in the study area was created using fill similar to that used at other sites along the San Francisco Bay waterfront. This fill, consisting largely of construction debris, has been found to contain metals and organic contaminants that could potentially pose a health risk to park visitors and the environment, if exposed. As part of the investigation leading to RWQCB Order 98-072, two areas with soils containing elevated lead were identified at Fleming Point. Soils in other parts of the study area not currently subject to Order 98-072 have not been fully characterized, but may have the potential to contain harmful concentrations of metals and other contaminants. Future improvements to public access and habitat at Albany Beach are not likely to warrant additional surface or subsurface investigations if the activities do not substantially disturb previously uninvestigated soil.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 33 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
6.0 OTHER SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION Currently there is no industry within or adjacent to the study area; however, previous uses of the land may pose a safety concern to the public today. Safety issues that are inherent to various types of recreation also affect current use of land and water in the study area. This section summarizes existing safety issues that should be taken into consideration as the feasibility of restoration and public access improvements are considered.
6.1.1 Relevant Plan Policies Guidelines, goals and policies relevant to safety considerations in the study area are summarized below. A complete list of the guidelines, goals and policies relevant to this section is provided on pages 8-9 of Table A-1 (Appendix A).
Eastshore State Park General Plan. The Park General Plan includes guidelines and goals for operations and community relations that are concerned with general emergency services as well as chemicals of potential concern and hazardous construction debris that may be encountered during site improvements. The Plan calls for development and implementation of a program for the removal of safety hazards associated with construction debris on the surface of the Neck and Bulb.
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Master Plan directs that District public safety staff will provide police and fire services for the safety and protection of parkland users and employees, and for the natural resources, structures, and lands of the District.
City of Albany General Plan. The City General Plan includes a wide range of goals and guidelines addressing public safety, including flood minimization, hazardous materials disposal and exposure, police and fire protection, and general emergency preparedness.
6.2 EXISTING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS 6.2.1 Potentially Hazardous Materials The history of land use in the study area is described in detail elsewhere in this report (see Section 5.0 Hazardous Materials and Site Remediation and Section 9.0 Historic and Cultural Resources). Past industrial uses and placement of contaminated fill at the shoreline in the twentieth century are the suspected sources of potentially harmful concentrations of metals and other contaminants in the soil; however, exceedances of contaminants were determined to be localized and not representative of the entire Albany peninsula and shoreline.
The remnant pier pilings at Fleming Point are creosote treated, as were most wood pilings installed in the Bay prior to the 1990s (Werme et al. 2009). Much of the timber washed up on Albany Beach is
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 34 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
creosote treated. Creosote is distilled from crude coal tars and is an EPA-registered pesticide that protects piles from aquatic organisms that bore into wood. Some of the chemical compounds in creosote are highly water soluble and known to be toxic to living organisms (Werme et al. 2009). The risks of removing creosote-treated wood from the beach and the bay versus leaving it in place should be considered.
6.2.2 Exposed Debris The most immediate public safety concern in the study area is the risk posed by exposed construction debris on the Neck and washed up debris on the Beach. Visitors who venture off the maintained trails are likely to encounter unsafe temporary structures, unstable rubble piles and driftwood, and protruding rusted rebar and metal scraps.
6.2.3 Recreation Recreational use of public lands comes with inherent safety risks. Not all of these risks are likely to change with implementation of site improvements, but they should be taken into consideration as various improvements are analyzed. Existing safety concerns related to recreation and public access include the following elements:
• Trails – (A) Several of the trails in the study area do not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for accessible design. Future improvements must consider the feasibility of achieving ADA compliance along with other goals, such as resource protection and maintenance requirements. (B) Many trails in the study area are informal and unpaved. Ruts and other erosion damage in the trails result in uneven surfaces and potential tripping hazards. • Traffic and circulation – (A) Simultaneous passage for bicycles, cars and pedestrians in the Buchanan Street parking area and turnaround is tight and visibility is limited where parked cars or vegetation can obscure pedestrians, cyclists and dogs from view until the moment they enter the road. Near collisions between cars and cyclists or cars and dogs are frequent occurrences in this area (LSA obs.). (B) Unofficial bicycle traffic along the shoreline between Buchanan Street and Golden Gate Fields (where a link in the Bay Trail is proposed) is haphazard and unmarked. Cyclists must navigate a narrow opening in a fence, travel over unconsolidated gravel, and avoid 18-wheel trucks parked there or driving through. • Water based activities – (A) No developed water access is available on the Neck shoreline. Visitors climb down a hazardous riprap bank to access the water and the intertidal zone. (B) Signage warns visitors of hazardous conditions at the derelict Fleming Point Pier; however, some visitors still climb on the pilings and concrete slabs. Submerged pilings are potential hazards to kite boarders, wind surfers, kayakers and other water craft users in the area. • Urban hazards – Like any urban park, the Albany lands are subject to vandalism and crime. In general, car break-ins are common in unattended parking lots and visitors should always use caution when hiking, cycling or boating alone.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 35 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
7.0 PHYSICAL PROCESSES
7.1 INTRODUCTION Physical processes such as wind and wave action and sediment transport are critical forces that form, support and affect the beach and dune features in the Albany Beach study area. These physical processes are influenced by the local and regional hydrology, geology and land development. This section documents the physical evolution of the Albany shoreline and discusses the geomorphic processes that must be considered when assessing the feasibility of public access and habitat improvements at Albany Beach. In addition this section summarizes technical studies conducted by PWA that will inform the development of upcoming conceptual alternatives for this area of Eastshore State Park. Hydrology, geology and seismic hazards in the study area also are addressed in this section.
7.1.1 Relevant Plan Policies Guidelines, goals and policies relevant to physical processes in the study area, including hydrology, soils and geology, are summarized below. A complete list of the guidelines, goals and policies relevant to this section is provided on pages 9-11 of Table A-1 (Appendix A).
Eastshore State Park General Plan. The Park General Plan includes one guideline for park operations relevant to hydrology in the study area. The guideline includes measures for conserving water and protecting water quality, such as using reclaimed water, minimizing impervious surfaces and incorporating vegetated filters and bioswales to slow and filter runoff. The Plan includes five guidelines relevant to soils and geology in the study area. The guidelines most relevant to potential public access and habitat improvements in the study area generally address controlling site erosion, evaluating slope stability of existing fill slopes and reworking existing fills, and using geotechnical oversight for construction that involves reconfiguration and stabilization of shorelines.
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Master Plan includes one guideline relevant to hydrology, which covers multiple aspects of hydrology or water quality. Park water resources will be used for beneficial purposes. Water quality will be monitored to comply with established standards. The District will participate in cooperative efforts to plan comprehensive watershed management, and will adopt “best management practice” guidelines for District land use activities to minimize potential storm water pollution. The Master Plan includes one guideline relevant to soils and geology, which emphasizes various approaches to preventing and repairing erosion on park lands.
City of Albany General Plan. The City General Plan includes one goal and one policy somewhat relevant to hydrology and soils/geology. The goal and guideline are primarily intended to address flooding and seismic hazards.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 36 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
7.2 ALBANY SHORELINE EVOLUTION Albany Beach lies in a right-angled pocket created between the Albany Neck and the Golden Gate Fields parking lots (Figure 2). The narrow sandy beach, littered with woody debris, is backed by a small dune field and areas of seasonal ponding. Steep slopes on the ends of the beach are defined by fill armored by concrete, construction debris and dumped rock materials. Albany Beach is one of the few examples of a sandy beach–dune complex in the Central Bay. It is a recently formed beach that has established over the past 60 years due to the orientation of the landfill that has captured and accumulated wave-driven drift of bay sand. Its recent evolution, and that of the surrounding shoreline, reflects the history of development of the area.
7.2.1 Pre-European Shoreline Historically, beaches were common on the Bay's edges, particularly in the Central Bay. The combination of wind waves and ocean swells coupled with the availability of sand from the Merritt Sand formation led to discrete patterns and distribution of sand beaches, sandy marsh shorelines and oyster shell beaches. The beaches were often located at the bayward edge of wide marshes. The historic shoreline has been mapped by Sowers (1995) and the evolution of the Albany shoreline is described in a number of articles by Susan Schwartz of the Friends of Five Creeks (Schwartz 2003, 2007 and 2008). The following description is based upon their work.
According to Sowers (1995), the pre-European shoreline of Albany and Berkeley approximated the present alignment of the East Shore Highway (I-580/I-80). This shoreline was anchored by the sandstone hilltops of an older range that can be traced along the East Bay – Fleming Point, Albany Hill, Point Isabel, Brooks Island and the Potrero San Pablo. As sea level rose rapidly over the last 8,000 years, the lowlands around the hills flooded and the hilltops were separated from the shore. A number of creeks drained the local watersheds behind the hills, namely Schoolhouse, Cerrito, Codornices and Village Creeks. Over time these creeks transported sediment from the watershed, creating an alluvial plain which reconnected the isolated hills to the shore.
Sand from the Merritt formation, a shallow marine Pleistocene deposit, was reworked alongshore by waves and tides building up beaches anchored by the hilltops. For example, a beach curved northward along the Berkeley Bight to Fleming Point which, much larger and higher than it is today, acted as the northern anchor of the beach. This headland arrested the movement of sand alongshore, allowing a beach to build up against Fleming Point and reorient perpendicular to the incident wave crests (swash-aligned).
In the lee (sheltered side) of the beach and the headland, protected from wave action, finer sediments were deposited that formed salt marshes and tidal flats. The creeks flowed into the wetlands, depositing gravels as flows left the channels and slowed across the flats. These gravels improved the drainage in the wetlands to the extent that the creeks disappeared below ground. A tidal slough, located in the area of the present day Albany Plateau ran north through the site and into the Bay, drained and flooded the wetlands.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 37 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
7.2.2 20th Century Modifications The Albany shoreline, like much of the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay, has been altered by landfill and land-use/urbanization within the watershed.
In 1939 Fleming Point was leveled for the construction of the Golden Gate Fields racetrack. The grandstand was built on top of the flattened hilltop and the excavated rock and soil material was used to fill in the salt marsh to create the track and parking lots (Figure 11). Despite this, and subsequent filling at the site, a small piece of the original marsh remains at the mouth of the Codornices Creek, outside the study area. The tidal slough that formerly drained the salt marsh became a narrow engineered channel carrying Codornices and Village Creeks to the Bay between the racetrack and the Eastshore Highway (I-580/I-80).
In 1942 the City of Albany extended Buchanan Street westward. Tides could still flow under Buchanan to the wetlands through four culverts, which created a large lagoon to the south at the creek mouth. This lagoon was gradually filled in to create parking lots.
In the late 1940s or early 1950s, the City of Albany began to use the wetlands north of Buchanan Street (extended section) and west of Golden Gate Fields as landfill. Over time this resulted in the creation of the Albany Neck and Bulb. Figure 12 shows the planform evolution of the shoreline to the present day. In 1958, fill at the Bulb may have been limited to construction waste, although municipal waste/garbage disposal may have also occurred after this time. In 1972, the State stopped all filling of the Bay; however, dumping continued on top of the existing landfill which increased its elevation considerably. Under State order the landfill was closed in 1975.
7.2.3 Present Shoreline The present configuration of Albany Beach and the surrounding area has been stable since about 1969 (Figure 12). Sand, transported from the Merritt Sand formation, has accumulated over a period of 60 years forming the beach in the cove defined by the shoreline at the Albany Bulb.
A simple conceptual model can explain the orientation and stability of Albany Beach. The incident wave direction that drives the longshore sand transport is set by the predominant offshore wave direction, the wave refraction pattern over the shoals and the wave diffraction pattern around the Albany Bulb. The presence of the Albany Neck has enabled the beach to accrete bayward, allowing the shoreline to orient itself parallel to the incoming wave crests. The beach is swash-aligned, meaning that most of the transport is oriented up and down the beach rather than alongshore, which makes the beach a relatively stable feature. The small size of the beach indicates that there may be a limited supply of sand. The dune field that lies behind the beach is likely to be fed from wind-blown sand derived from the beach when it dries out. The supply of sand is usually dependent upon the width and elevation of the beach as this determines how large an area dries out during the tidal cycle. The subtidal area offshore of the beach is protected from tidal currents by the Albany Bulb and is likely to be an area of deposition of fine sediment.
The fill that makes up the Plateau, Neck, and Bulb consists primarily of construction debris, although the Bulb also originally contained paper and vegetation waste from street sweeping, landscape
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 38 Source: City of Albany, Available Online: figure 11 voicestovision.com, May 20, 2010 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study 1850 Albany Shoreline
PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Revised Figs 6-23-10\PWA Albany Beach Conditions Figs v6.doc 1850 1949
1959 1966
1969 2009
Source: City of Albany, Available Online: figure 12 voicestovision.com, May 20, 2010 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study Evolution of Albany Shoreline 1949-2009
PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Revised Figs 6-23-10\PWA Albany Beach Conditions Figs v6.doc LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
maintenance and similar activities (Levine-Fricke 1989). The Plateau was created around 1970 by filling over tidal mud flats and open water. Fill activities at the Plateau created a relatively level area ranging in elevations from approximately 25 feet above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) near the eastern portion and approximately 36 feet (MLLW) near the Bulb. The Plateau is elevated relative to the beach and shoreline to the south, with side slopes as steep as 1.3:1. Reinforcing steel (rebar) is readily observed protruding from concrete debris at the fill surface.
The Plateau fill is anticipated to be approximately 30 to 40 feet thick. Soil boring and well logs suggest that the near-surface soils consist of a 1 to 2 foot (variable) layer of sand, gravel, and clay fill overlying the debris fill, although there is evidence of debris fill at the ground surface (Levine-Fricke 1989). Soft to medium stiff Bay Mud is reported to exist beneath the Plateau, Neck, and Bulb. At the Plateau, Bay Mud thickness gradually increases in a northwesterly direction from zero near the grandstand area of Golden Gate Fields to approximately 25 feet near the Buchanan Street extension. The Bay Mud underlying the Albany Bulb is approximately 20 to 40 feet thick (Goldman 1969). The Bay Mud is underlain by stiff to very stiff clays, silts, and medium-dense to dense sands and gravels (Levine-Fricke 1989).
The steep slopes located on the southern shoreline of the Neck are subject to erosion from both storm water runoff across the slope face and waves along the toe of slope. The surface of the Neck and Plateau is also subject to erosion from storm water runoff. Concrete and other construction debris can exacerbate erosion by concentrating and focusing flows onto less resistant materials leading to piping of soils through the fill matrix.
Four soil borings were performed in the southern portion of the study area, near Fleming Point, as part of a Phase II environmental site assessment (Tetra Tech 1994). Soils in this area consist primarily of sandy gravels and gravelly sands to a depth of 10.5 feet below ground surface (bgs), the limits of exploration for the Phase II investigation.
7.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The artificial fill is underlain by soft, compressible, young Bay Mud of variable thickness. Bay Mud generally consists of clayey, sandy silt with shells and other organic material and lenses of fine sand (Radbruch 1957). A report prepared by 3E Engineering (1989) for the Cesar Chavez Park, approximately 4,000 feet south of the study area, indicates that the young Bay Mud is underlain by remnants of the Pleistocene to Recent Merritt Sand, which is reported to be up to 30 feet thick. The Merritt Sand is a silty, clayey fine-grained sand with lenses of sandy clay and clay. The Bay Mud and Merritt sand are underlain by the Pleistocene Alameda Formation that includes several hundred feet of sediment underlying the Bay and Bay shore plain. The Pleistocene Alameda Formation is made up of continental and marine gravels, sands, silts, and clays, with some shells and organic materials. The Pleistocene Alameda Formation is underlain by Mesozoic Franciscan Assemblage bedrock consisting of fractured and sheared arkosic to greywacke sandstone with some shells.
Soil is generally defined as the unconsolidated mixture of mineral grains and organic material that mantles the land surfaces of the earth. All of the land in the study area (including Fleming Point) is mapped in the Alameda County soil survey (USDA 1981) as Urban land, a miscellaneous category for identifying land that is covered by buildings, roads, parking lots, and other urban structures. The
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 41 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
soil material in this mapping unit is mainly heterogeneous fill and most areas mapped as Urban land are adjacent to San Francisco Bay.
7.4 HYDROLOGY San Francisco Bay is the primary hydrologic feature in the study area, exerting a strong influence on the biotic and abiotic characteristics of the Albany shoreline. Albany Beach is included in what is called the “Berkeley Segment” of the Central Bay subregion (Goals Project 1999). The major Bay processes that influence hydrology along the Albany shoreline include tides, waves, relative sea level rise and storm surges. These components are addressed in detail later in this section of the report.
Other hydrologic processes of importance to Albany Beach include climate regime, groundwater conditions and drainage. Precipitation represents the primary climatic factor of hydrologic importance (PWA 2002). Precipitation falling directly on the project site uplands, including paved areas, fills local depressions and swales, creating a small network of seasonal wetlands and a drainage within the dune field (see Section 8.5 and Appendix H). Other climatic factors such as air temperature, wind, humidity, and solar radiation contribute to the overall physical environment. Some of the rainfall percolates through the soil and sand and supports the local groundwater table (PWA 2002). A regional groundwater table exists, gradually conveying subsurface flows from the eastern extents of the site to the Bay. Interaction of the on-site water table with various landfill debris also creates a groundwater pollution problem (see Section 5.0 Hazardous Materials and Site Remediation).
No creeks or tidal wetlands occur in the study area, however the existing seasonal wetlands are likely influenced by waves and ‘tidal action’ during specific extreme events. Codornices Creek and Cerrito Creek, which enter the Bay on the north side of the Albany Plateau, are the nearest creeks (0.3 mile) just north of Albany Beach. Schoolhouse Creek enters the Bay 1.3 miles south of Albany Beach. These three creeks drain densely urbanized areas and may influence the water quality in the Bay along the Albany shoreline.
Outside the study area, soil borings and well data indicate that groundwater ranges from approximately 20 to 30 feet below ground surface in the Plateau area and about 4.5 to 5.5 feet below ground surface in the parking lot at Golden Gate Fields, immediately adjacent to the study area. At the southern limits of the study site groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 8.5 feet bgs during borings performed as part of the Phase II environmental site assessment.
7.5 TIDES The East Bay shoreline experiences mixed semidiurnal tides, with two (2) high and two (2) low tides of unequal height each day (24-hour period). In addition, the tides exhibit strong spring-neap tide variability; spring tides exhibit the greatest difference between high and low tides while neap tides show a smaller than average range. The NOAA tidal datums for the 1983-2001 epoch for the San Francisco Presidio tide gauge are summarized in Table 7.1. The mean tidal range (defined as Mean High Water minus Mean Low Water) is 4.1 ft and the diurnal range (defined as MHHW minus MLLW) is 5.84 ft.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 42 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Table 7.1: NOAA Tidal Datums (1983-2001 epoch) for San Francisco Presidio Tide Gauge
MLLW (ft) NAVD881 (ft) MHHW 5.84 5.90 MHW 5.23 5.29 MTL 3.18 3.24 MLW 1.13 1.19 MLLW 0.00 0.06 1 NAVD88 is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988
7.6 RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE AND SUBSIDENCE Climate change simulations project a substantial rate of global sea level rise over the next century due to thermal expansion as the oceans warm and runoff from melting land-based snow and ice accelerates. With sea level rise there will always be different sets of projections and qualifications due to: • the uncertainty of the modeling, • when the projection was made (the science is rapidly evolving), and • choice of future emission scenarios.
There are three sets of projections that are common in the Bay: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007), the State of California (Cayan et al. 2008) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2009). These projections are detailed in Appendix E. All three apply to the East Bay shoreline; therefore, each may be used as described below. • For long-term planning purposes (i.e., a high-end projection for 2100) the projections of Cayan et al. (2008) should be used, which project 16" by 2050 and 55" by 2100. This is the guidance used by the State of California for projects undertaken by their agencies (Coastal Conservancy, etc.). • If the USACE are involved in the project, then the USACE guidance on intermediate and lower estimates (Appendix E, Table E.3) should be followed as well. • The IPCC projections are very important in that they represent the consensus of the worlds’ scientists of what the latest scientific evidence shows. These projections are updated every 5-7 years. As the projections are the result of consensus processes, they will typically provide a conservative estimate. These projections will also be lower than more recent high-end values (Appendix E, Table E.3); however, IPCC is the foundation for national studies (such as USACE 2009) and regional studies (such as Cayan et al. 2008). The next update to IPCC projections in 2012-2013 will probably be higher and may well trigger different national and regional projections.
Relative sea level rise projections specific to the Albany shoreline should account for issues such as land subsidence rates as well as the range of uncertainty in selected sea level rise projections. The geologically young Bay Muds and fill materials on the Albany Peninsula are relatively ‘uncompacted’ and unsettled, which may lead to consolidation and settlement or subsidence over time. The
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 43 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
maximum amount of consolidation of Bay Mud and fill depends on the density and thickness of the materials. Bay Mud 10- to 30-feet thick beneath 10 to 20 feet of sand fill is expected to settle on the order of 1.5 to 5 feet. The rate of settlement is most rapid immediately after loading and gradually decreases with time. It has been estimated that a 10-foot thick Bay Mud layer would achieve maximum consolidation within 2 years (Lee and Praszker 1969).
Settlement at the Plateau, Neck and Bulb is expected to occur based upon two separate mechanisms: compression of debris fill and consolidation of Bay Mud. The compression of the fill is expected to occur due to raveling (movement of fine particles into voids), decomposition, chemical reactions, and compaction and consolidation due to self-weight of the fill. The consolidation of underlying Bay Mud is expected to occur due to the weight of the overlying fill. Settlement would most likely manifest itself as undulations on the ground surface (Levine-Fricke 1989).
It is estimated that the Plateau area will settle between 2 to 2.75 feet over the period from 1989 to 2039. Additional settlement could occur in the Plateau area due to new loads (additional fill or building loads) transferred to the underlying Bay Mud layer.
Restoration and public access improvements on the Albany Plateau, Neck, and Bulb may be affected by settlement of the landfill materials and underlying soft sediments, presence of the landfill cap, presence of a variety of landfill materials, static and seismic stability of steep side slopes, and slope stability of the landfill containment dikes. Limited geotechnical information is available regarding the type, distribution and quality of surficial soils that are present in this area. The presence or absence of surficial soils that are appropriate for the intended use of the project site could constrain shoreline restoration and/or trail improvements and the presence of near surface construction debris could restrict the depth of excavation for such improvements. In addition, subsidence will influence erosion risk and the suitability of soil types for specific restoration and improvement measures. Surface erosion is expected to be an ongoing geotechnical issue on the Bulb, Neck and Plateau.
7.7 WAVES Analysis of the wave climate at Albany Beach was undertaken to determine the level of sustainability of the existing beach and to provide an understanding of potential enhancement actions. Wave action is a primary driving force in sediment transport processes, and greatly influences the extent of coastal flooding during storm surges. This section describes the wave hindcast model that was used to predict wind generated waves for typical or average conditions and wave characteristics during storm conditions.
Wind-waves at Albany Beach were estimated using methods outlined in the Shore Protection Manual (SPM), published by the Coastal Engineering Research Center of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1984). Using these methods, wave height and period is estimated as a function of wind speed, fetch, and water depth. For this particular analysis, a wave hindcast model (WAVE98, developed by PWA) was used (see Appendix F). The WAVE98 model utilizes the methods outlined in Chapter 3 of the SPM and applies the composite fetch method described by Goda (1985). The composite fetch method accounts for energy contributions to wave generation along a primary direction with wave energy that spreads from neighboring fetches and directions. The geometry of the group of fetches is an important factor in the resulting wave characteristics. For example, predicted
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 44 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
wave heights over a relatively short fetch will be small if only the primary fetch is considered; predicted wave heights will be larger if contributions from a neighboring, longer fetch are considered.
In addition to wind waves, long period waves, or ground swell, can play an important role in coastal geomorphology and shoreline processes. Swell propagating through the Golden Gate was not used for this analysis, although small amplitude waves with long periods are present at the site. The focus of the analysis is on the wind-generated waves because the effects of swell at this site are assumed to be negligible compared to the effects of wind waves. Although Albany Beach is directly exposed to the Golden Gate, only very large and infrequent open coast wave events are capable of reaching Albany Beach. Swell waves that do penetrate the Golden Gate experience spreading and refract around the many headlands, islands, and shoals which exist in the Central Bay, and cause the wave height and energy to decrease to insignificant levels.
7.7.1 Wind Rose Five years of 60-minute averaged hourly wind speed and direction data were obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2010) for the UC Richmond station. A wind rose, showing frequencies of wind speed events for 36 directions, was generated to illustrate the directional distribution of wind events and the predominant wind direction from the Southwest (Figure 13). For this particular data set, the recorded wind speeds range from 0 to 38 miles/hr, but the most frequent wind speeds are between 7 and 12 miles/hr. Wind speeds at the UC Richmond station are comparable to other sites in the North and South Bay, but the distribution of directions varies greatly depending on local geography and topographic influence. Two other sites, the Port of Oakland and Oakland Toll Plaza, also were analyzed, but the UC Richmond station was determined to be more representative of winds at Albany Beach due to local topography (Figure 14).
7.7.2 Fetch Geometry Fetch is a term for the length (or area) of water and direction over which wind must travel to generate waves at a particular point. Typically, the greater the fetch, the larger the resulting wave height for a given wind speed and duration. Figure 14 illustrates the fetch directions used in the wind-wave analysis. The topography of the Central Bay influences the length of each fetch. For the purpose of this analysis, 13 fetch directions were chosen, spread radially from 150ºN to 270ºN by 10º increments. The length of each fetch and the average depth of the last two thirds of each fetch are summarized in Table 7.2. For purposes of modeling typical wave conditions, the average fetch depth was measured below MHHW.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 45 60-min Wind Speed (MPH)
Station Information
Name: UC Richmond Site ID: 2950 Start: 7/1/1999 End: Current Operator: BAAQMD Latitude: 37.9148 Longitude: 122.3379 Elevation: 1 meter Wind Height: 10 meter
Source: figure 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study Notes: Wind speeds are 60-min averages in miles per hour (MPH) Wind Rose at UC Richmond Station
PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Revised Figs 6-23-10\PWA Albany Beach Conditions Figs v6.doc Source: figure 14 NOAA, Chart 18649, February 3, 1996 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study Notes: Soundings in feet below MLLW Map of Fetches and Wind Stations
PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Revised Figs 6-23-10\PWA Albany Beach Conditions Figs v6.doc LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Table 7.2: Direction, Length, and Depth of Fetches at Albany Beach
Average Fetch Compass Fetch Length Depth (feet below Direction (miles) MHHW) 150º 1.16 10.8 160º 0.95 10.8 170º 0.67 10.8 180º 0.70 10.8 190º 5.50 14.8 200º 9.53 33.8 210º 4.81 18.8 220º 6.99 35.8 230º 8.36 38.8 240º 9.95 68.8 250º 5.80 28.8 260º 5.70 23.8 270º 6.50 31.8 Source: NOAA Chart 18649, February 3, 1996.
7.7.3 Offshore Wave Height and Period Applying the wind rose frequencies, fetch, and depth data to the WAVE98 model yields a distribution of offshore wave height and period for different directions and wind intensities. The term offshore refers to the relative deep water locations where waves have not undergone any refraction-induced change in direction or height. For this study, offshore predictions are located at a point south of the Albany Bulb as shown in Figure 14. Offshore wave height and period roses are presented in Figure 15 (top) and Figure 16 (top), respectively. The largest, but infrequent, predicted wave height and period was 3.0 ft and 3.6 seconds, respectively. Predominant wind conditions result in a wave height of approximately 1 ft with a period of approximately 2.6 seconds. The offshore depth of water within the fetch zones associated with Albany Beach was assumed to be deep enough to have no influence on the direction of wave propagation and refraction was assumed negligible in the offshore wave hindcast. Similarly, effects of diffraction, a lateral spreading of waves, around headlands and other topographic obstructions were considered minimal.
7.7.4 Nearshore Transformation As waves approach a shoreline, the depth becomes shallower and the waves ‘feel’ the bottom. Bed friction slows the wave and cause the crest to bend parallel to the contours of the shoreline. To account for the transformation of the offshore waves to the nearshore, the conservation of energy and Snell’s law were used to determine breaker angle, height, and depth (Wiegel 1964). Transformation of the waves from deep to shallow water assumed linear wave theory, and the dispersion relation was solved iteratively for each wave direction. The results of the nearshore transformation of wave height and period are presented in the lower panels of Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively. The results
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 48 Offshore Rose:
Wave Height (ft)
Nearshore Rose:
Wave Height (ft)
Source: figure 15 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study Offshore and Nearshore Wave Height Rose
PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Revised Figs 6-23-10\PWA Albany Beach Conditions Figs v6.doc Offshore Rose:
Wave Period (s)
Nearshore Rose:
Wave Period (s)
Source: figure 16 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study Offshore and Nearshore Wave Period Rose
PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Revised Figs 6-23-10\PWA Albany Beach Conditions Figs v6.doc LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
indicate a narrowing of the directions of waves as they approach the shoreline from an initially wide band of directions, and wave crests become parallel to the bed contours. This indicates that the geomorphic planform of the beach is in equilibrium, with zero or low rates of sediment transport along the shoreline and that the beach is swash-aligned. Here, it is assumed the shoreline is oriented from the northwest to the southeast, and shore normal was directed at 225ºN. The nearshore wave height and period roses were discretized into 5º bins, resulting in 72 directions, to illustrate the refraction of waves. The shape of the wave rose is very sensitive to bin size, and a more detailed analysis should consider creating smooth, or continuous, distributions of wind and waves. The present wave rose is adequate for describing the existing geomorphic conditions of the shoreline and beach.
7.7.5 Wave Power Distribution The state of equilibrium of the beach is indicated by the wave power, which is proportional to H2T, where H is the wave height and T is the wave period. Wave power is a rate of energy per foot of beach. Wave power P is estimated using the equation
P = (ρg2/64π)H2T (1) where ρ is the density of sea water and g is the acceleration of gravity. In English units, wave power is presented as ft-lb/ft-s.
Offshore and nearshore wave power roses are presented in the upper and lower panels, respectively, of Figure 17. As suggested by the existing geomorphic planform of Albany Beach, the predominant direction of wave power is toward shore normal, indicating that the beach is in equilibrium (i.e., zero to low rates of longshore sediment transport). A close inspection of the nearshore wave power rose shows that the direction is slightly to the south of shore normal, but this is probably because wind directions are slightly altered from the UC Richmond site to Albany Beach. Additionally, the annual wave power rose does not account for seasonal differences in direction and magnitudes which could illuminate more complicated processes of wave driven sediment transport.
7.7.6 Storm Conditions Storm conditions were analyzed to estimate wave height and period during an extreme wind event, which can lead to a storm surge and flooding conditions (see Wave Runup and Flooding below). The low lying Albany Beach area is susceptible to flooding and damage from storm waves. Annual maximum wind speeds were extracted from a 59 year data set of hourly 2-minute averaged wind speed from the San Francisco International Airport (NCDC 2007). A statistical analysis was performed in which a General Extreme Value (GEV) distribution was fitted to the data to estimate return periods, or recurrence intervals, of wind speed. The extreme wind speeds were applied to the WAVE98 model independent of direction to obtain a “worst-case” scenario of wave height and period for several recurrence intervals. For this analysis the 2-yr water level of 7.79 ft MLLW (7.85 ft NAVD88) was used (PWA 2007). The 2-yr water level increases the depths used in the analysis above by almost 2 feet. Table 7.3 summarizes the results of the wave analysis for extreme wind speeds and a 2-yr still water level (SWL).
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 51 Offshore Rose:
Wave Power (ft-lb/ft-s)
Nearshore Rose:
Wave Power (ft-lb/ft-s)
Source: figure 17 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study Offshore and Nearshore Wave Power Rose
PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Revised Figs 6-23-10\PWA Albany Beach Conditions Figs v6.doc LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Table 7.3: Recurrence Intervals of Extreme Wind Speeds at San Francisco International Airport and Estimated Corresponding Extreme Wave Height and Period with a 2-yr Water Level
Recurrence 2-min Average Wind Wave Height (ft) Wave Period (s) Interval Speed (MPH) 2-yr 42.4 2.4 3.6 5-yr 48.1 2.8 3.6 10-yr 51.5 3.0 3.8 20-yr 54.3 3.1 3.6 50-yr 57.7 3.2 3.6 100-yr 59.9 3.3 3.6 200-yr 61.9 3.4 3.6 Source: NCDC 2007. Hourly surface integrated wind data from SFO.
7.7.7 Wave Runup and Flooding Flood hazards for the study area were estimated to provide an understanding of the existing conditions and to provide guidance for future use and potential enhancement actions. This is a preliminary analysis to assist planning and more detailed calculations would be required for detailed design. Wave runup and overtopping of the Beach, the Neck, and the Southern Shoreline (adjacent to the Golden Gate Fields parking) pose a threat to infrastructure and increase maintenance responsibilities. The 100-yr total water level (TWL) is an indication of the severity of flood extents as it includes storm surge, wave setup and wave runup. The TWL is computed as the sum of an extreme water level (including storm surge), wave setup and wave runup.
The TWL was estimated for two scenarios: (1) a damage scenario in which a moderately high tide is combined with a very strong wind, in this case a 2-yr SWL and a 100-yr wind event were selected, and (2) a flood hazard scenario where a 100-yr SWL was combined with a 10-yr wind event. The 100-yr SWL is 8.71 ft NAVD (8.65 ft MLLW) for the project site (PWA 2007).
Wave setup, a super-elevation of the water surface created by incoming waves, was assumed to be approximately 20 percent of the offshore wave height. Based on the wave analysis performed a wave setup dimension of 0.5 feet was used.
Wave runup, the maximum vertical extent of wave uprush on a beach or structure above the SWL, was computed for the Beach and the Neck using the TAW method described in the FEMA Guidelines for Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis (FEMA 2004). The TAW method is adapted after van der Meer (2002), and is a function of the wave steepness, the slope of the beach or structure, and characteristics of the structure surface (such as roughness). Runup generally increases as the slope becomes steeper, but decreases with increased roughness.
The wave runup for scenario (1), the damage scenario, was estimated to be 2.9 feet above the SWL for the Beach and 6.7 feet above the SWL for the armored Neck. Similarly, for scenario (2), the flood hazard scenario, the wave runup was estimated to be 2.7 feet above the SWL for the Beach and
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 53 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
5.9 feet above the SWL for the Neck. The runup value along the southern shoreline is assumed to be between 2.7 feet and 6.7 feet above the SWL, because the slope is steeper than the Beach and flatter than the Neck, and is made up of smaller, compacted, angled rocks.
The TWL for the two scenarios resulted in similar values for the two Beach estimates, and also for the two Neck estimates (Table 7.4). Therefore the 100-yr TWL is assumed to be similar for both scenarios. A TWL of approximately 11 to 12 ft NAVD was estimated along the Beach; along the Neck a TWL of approximately 15 ft NAVD was estimated.
Table 7.4: Calculation of the Total Water Level
Scenario 1: 2-yr Water Level and Scenario 2: 100-yr Water Level and Description 100-yr Wind Event 10-yr Wind Event Beach Neck Beach Neck Extreme Water Level (ft 7.85 7.85 8.71 8.71 NAVD) Wave Setup (ft) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Wave Runup (ft) 2.9 6.7 2.7 5.9 TWL (ft NAVD) 11.3 15.1 11.9 15.1 Source: PWA 2007
Figure 18 shows an approximate limit of the 100-yr TWL at the study area. Along the Neck, the TWL is about at the seaward edge of the trail, or the top of the armor. The roughness of the existing armor and rubble limits the height that the runup could potentially reach, but the trail is impacted and likely contributes to winnowing and erosion along the trail. Along the Beach significant flooding is expected. Although the runup is lower at the Beach because the slope is flatter, low areas and pathways through the dunes could cause significant flooding in and behind the dunes. Along the south shoreline the ground elevation is significantly lower than the runup elevation, and waves are expected to reach approximately 50 feet inland. Shallow flooding of the parking lot is anticipated.
The estimates for TWL will be important to guide planning, evaluation and design of restoration and public access improvements for Albany Beach. Appropriate consideration of the future TWL conditions and influence on the site will also provide a framework for adaptive management and maintenance of the site.
7.8 SEISMIC HAZARDS The project site, like the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area, is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The seismic setting of the east bay shoreline is dominated by the Hayward fault, which is located approximately 3 miles east of the project study area, and the San Andreas fault, which is located approximately 20 miles southwest of the project study area. The Healdsburg-Rogers Creek fault (which may be an extension of the Hayward fault) lies approximately 20 miles northwest of the project study area. The Hayward fault is the closest known active fault. The maximum credible earthquakes for the Hayward, San Andreas, and Healdsburg-Rogers Creek faults are 7.5, 8.3, and 7.2 (Richter Magnitude), respectively (Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002). The site could be affected by strong ground shaking due to movement along one of these or any one of a number of other active faults in the region.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 54 9106.57.5 132.5 4 28.5 25 1 1 2 2122.5951.12568.5254 .5 .5 .5 303231783.5. 25 34 3 31.5 376.5 39 2 3 40.452 4 33 42 .5 12 31 5 12 30 28.5 16. 13.5 42 24 37.5 42 18 27 36 33 4 25.5 39 0.5 .5 34.5 31.5 19 16 10 22.5 21 19.5 .5 9 .5 18 13.5 10 9 9 21 13.5 .5 1 19 12 5 1 .5 15 0.5 9 5 19.5 . 9 9 6 .5 1 1 13.5 9 12
9 9 6
1 5 .5 . 0
1 3 .5 5 4. 10 . 5 0 12 1 10 5
10.
10.5
5 10.
9 10.5 10.5
9 10.5
5 . 1 4 0 . .5 5 0 110
9 .5 10 9 10.5 .5 10 5 . 0 1 10.5
5 10 . .5
0
1 10.5
Legend 9 7.5 5 9 . 100-yr TWL 0 10.5 1 3 10.5 1 MHHW 0 13.5 15 12 161.8512925.75.5 2214 232813..35.5 33043.65440433.2795.545 Source: East Bay Regional Park District and Alameda County (Imagery and Topography); NOAA-NOS (Tidal Datums); figure 18 PWA (100-yr coastal flood limit). Note: TWL = Total Water Level Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study MHHW= Mean Higher High Water (5.9 ft NAVD) All elevations are in ft NAVD88 Coastal Flood Limits
0 255 510 PWA Ref# - 2009 Feet ± G:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
7.8.1 Ground Shaking The Bay Area experiences strong and violent ground shaking during large earthquakes occurring on major active fault zones within the region (USGS 1999). Ground shaking, and the resulting potential for damage, is considered the primary seismic hazard along the east bay shoreline, rather than surface fault rupture. The severity of ground shaking is influenced by a number of factors, including the size (magnitude) of the earthquake; the distance to the fault that generated the earthquake; the depth of the earthquake; and the geologic materials that underlie the site. Thick, loose soils, such as Bay Mud, tend to amplify and prolong the ground shaking.
Because most of the project site consists of fill underlain by Bay Mud, ground shaking will be more intense than at nearby areas underlain by bedrock. During the Loma Prieta earthquake, the recorded peak accelerations at Bay Area sites underlain by fill materials and Bay Mud were more than three times greater than the peak accelerations at nearby bedrock locations such as Yerba Buena Island (Carlisle and Rollins 1994). As a result, ABAG predicted that amplification of seismic waves in East Bay fill materials would be high compared to other Bay Area geological materials. Experts predict that an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.1 on the northern part of the Hayward Fault would cause significant structural damage due to ground shaking (Perkins and Boatwright 1995).
7.8.2 Fault Rupture The study area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as designated by the State of California Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972. There are no active or potentially active faults that are known to cross the study area. Therefore, the potential for fault surface rupture at the site is remote.
7.8.3 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction of soil results from the transformation of loose, water-saturated, granular material from a solid state to a liquefied state due to the increase in pore water pressure during an earthquake. Lateral spreading, or ground lurching, is the horizontal component of soil movement in the direction of a free face that results from the liquefaction of a supporting layer.
The fill and sand dunes in the project study area are susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spreading, because these materials overlie unconsolidated Bay Mud, and groundwater is shallow.
7.8.4 Tsunamis Tsunamis are seismically induced waves in coastal areas caused by an earthquake. There is a relatively low probability that a tsunami would occur in the study area. Runup caused by a tsunami would be small and would remain shoreward of proposed structures. Although tsunamis are generated in many areas around the Pacific Rim, only an earthquake in Alaska’s Aleutian Trench could generate tsunamis capable of causing major runups in northern California. The theoretical 100-year runup from an Alaskan earthquake was calculated to be 7.0 feet at the Golden Gate and half of this value within the Bay. Therefore, runup in the study area due to a major earthquake in the Aleutian Islands is expected to be minor, and this expectation is consistent with the experience from the Great Alaska
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 56 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Earthquake of 1964, when substantial damage was reported only along the unprotected Pacific shoreline at Crescent City, California (300 miles north of the study area).
7.9 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CONDITIONS San Francisco Bay and the physical processes that have created and sustain Albany Beach are critical to guide successful planning and design efforts for restoration and public access improvements at the site. Identifying and understanding the existing and future conditions at the site is important in defining and developing sustainable approaches to meet enhancement objectives for the beach and dune features as well as public use and interpretation. In addition, planning efforts should integrate the understanding of future conditions such as sea level rise to integrate management goals for the site such as flood protection and habitat adaptation into the design components. Stated goals for beach and dune expansion as well as shoreline stabilization and wetland creation can serve multiple functions including habitat and aesthetic enhancements to flood control and public access.
7.9.1 Beach Albany Beach is a stable, swash-aligned shoreline feature as determined by the orientation of the beach to the direction of the predominant wave power vector. The beach’s orientation and general stability suggests that sediment transport rates to and from the shoreline are low. The relatively small size of the beach also indicates that there is probably a low sediment supply. Incoming waves are focused at the beach and their energy is dissipated through wave breaking, which influences where sediment is deposited. Based on the wave analysis and evaluation of existing topographic conditions, the beach likely floods during extreme coastal storm events with waves overtopping the beach berm and inundating the seasonal wetland area in the backbeach dunes. These conclusions are supported by anecdotal observations of wave and flood-borne debris within the dunes and parking lot areas.
Albany Beach is anticipated to remain stable in the future, but will likely decrease in width because of impacts associated with sea level rise. As sea level rises, the beach will transgress landward, and if there is sufficient material present, the beach berm will increase in elevation but move landward and likely become narrower. Maintaining or creating a broad beach similar to the existing beach under future conditions may be possible through grading to flatten and extend the transition between the shoreline and upland zones. In addition, the beach may require ‘nourishment’ (placement of imported sand material) if the sediment supply is, in fact, limited. The dunes may expand if a wide and high beach which dries out and generates wind blown sand establishes; however, these conditions depend on the future profile. Expansion of the dunes further landward will probably require additional beach nourishment to establish a source of fine sand to be transported by the wind. Additional measures such as sand fences and vegetation are recommended to help capture and stabilize mobilized sand, consistent with an overall project program and design. Beach and dune enhancement measures are examined in the opportunities and constraints analysis of the Feasibility Study.
7.9.2 Neck The Neck is an armored and reflective (wave energy) feature which is actively eroding to varying degrees based on location and orientation as well as topographic and material conditions. An ad hoc mix of materials consisting of concrete, construction debris and rock armor the shoreline along the
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 57 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Neck. High wave runup and overtopping events induce erosion within the bank which damages the integrity of the nonengineered structure and threatens the upper sections of the slope including existing pathways. Specifically, the toe is eroding due to the reflection of incident wave energy. The reflected wave energy is focused onto the corner at the Beach. Portions of the existing trail and areas under consideration for future public access are impacted by the runup and overtopping events.
The current configuration and conditions of the shoreline along the southern edge of the Neck will not support proposed habitat enhancement and public access improvements over time. Erosion along the Neck shoreline will increase as sea level rises, which will allow larger waves to impact and degrade the Neck shoreline. Although the structure is fixed in place, the toe and crest of the Neck will experience greater rates and frequency of erosion by wave runup and overtopping. The trail behind the crest will also be susceptible to damage by wave overtopping. Flooding is not anticipated to be a significant issue due to the typical elevations of the trail but damage and periodic impacts to access should be considered. Design of enhancement elements on the Neck will need to consider and address future increases in erosion and instability of the shoreline in order to provide sustainable habitat conditions and safe, low maintenance public access improvements. The anticipated future conditions including erosion risk should be used to guide determination of appropriate location and type of enhancement action as well as reconfiguration (width and alignment) of trail sections.
Possible actions that would mitigate the anticipated damage to the Neck while enhancing habitat values and public access include modifications to the existing cross section or plan form of the shoreline at specific locations. Construction of a pocket beach in the northwest corner between the Bulb and Neck could dissipate wave energy and decrease wave reflection. The new beach would diversify the habitat types along the shoreline while providing an attractive public access point. A new beach along the Neck would require placement of imported material (nourishment) to establish the desired and intended condition. Another potential modification to the existing cross section is to improve the armoring of the Neck. An engineered structure with a designed toe to accommodate scour, properly sized and graded rock armor, elevated crest elevation, and reduced slope could reduce erosion rates, improve aesthetic values and provide opportunities to create zones of upland transitional habitat. An alternative to using large, static rock armor could be to install a cobble beach or dynamic revetment in the lower section of the slope which would dissipate incoming wave energy, reduce reflection, and reduce rates of erosion. Due to the slope heights and trail location, creation of a cobble beach would require some grading of the existing slope and, potentially, a limited amount of fill along the limits of the beach to establish the stable profile. An example of modifying the plan form would be to install several small pocket beaches with some headland structures along the Neck. Sand or cobble beaches could be effective to respond to rising sea level, coinciding wave environments, and multiple goals for diversification of habitat types and shoreline protection.
7.9.3 South Shoreline The shoreline along the Golden Gate Fields parking area south of Albany Beach is very similar to the shoreline along the southern edge of the Neck, except for lower ground elevations (upland zones) behind the shoreline. Due to the lower elevations these areas are at an increased risk of inundation under both present and future conditions. The south shoreline is characterized by a rock beach with scattered rubble. Two abandoned earthen pier landings protrude into the bay from the shoreline at the southern extents of the study area. The small ‘peninsulas’ act to capture and hold sand, creating small pocket beaches. In addition the larger peninsula is actively eroding as a result of wave action. Erosion
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 58 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
and episodic damage by runup and overtopping is evidenced by gravel that is frequently deposited along the edge of the parking lot. Currently these conditions lead to maintenance requirements for sand and gravel removal. The south shoreline appears stable in the longshore orientation and there is little evidence of northward drift. The evidence of the overtopping and the low-lying ground elevations suggest that the parking lot experiences shallow flooding during extreme coastal flood events such as combination of spring high tide and wave heights on the order of 2.5 to 3 feet. Wave events that overtop the shoreline likely contribute to flooding resulting from rainfall runoff that has been observed in areas behind the dune field.
Future conditions of the south shoreline are similar to the Neck, but with the addition of more frequent overtopping and coincident shallow flooding. The toe of armored shoreline areas is expected to deepen over time with increased sea level rise and limited sediment supply to replace scoured material. This change in the shoreline will allow larger waves to impact the structure thus increasing the risk to and susceptibility of the shoreline to future conditions. A decrease in freeboard over time will lead to increased runup and damage to the crest of the structure. Additionally, wave overtopping may increase in frequency and volume possibly expanding the areal and temporal extent of inundation and flooding in susceptible upland areas.
The possible actions to mitigate anticipated damage and associated impacts at the south shoreline are similar to the Neck including reducing the slope of the shoreline where possible, reconfiguration of the shoreline (create pocket beaches, remove pier landings, etc.) to stabilize specific areas of concern, increasing the elevation of the shoreline crest and adding clusters of larger rock armor to dissipate more wave energy. Measures to improve the shoreline can and should support habitat and public access elements, for example, by creating a diversity of intertidal shoreline conditions and locating the public access trail at the top of the improved shoreline.
Beach and dune enhancement and shoreline stabilization actions at Albany Beach provide opportunities to improve and expand existing habitat conditions while addressing anticipated changes associated with sea level rise and dynamic shoreline processes. Considering and designing for future conditions at the site will allow for the establishment of connected, sustainable and resilient ecosystem function while providing safe, engaging and low maintenance public access elements. Detailed analyses will be required to establish a basis of design for habitat enhancement, shoreline stabilization measures and public access improvements in future phases of design. The basis of design for each project element should include functional, structural, biological, water quality, and maintenance criteria that are consistent with the District’s goals for the site. Existing and potential aquatic habitats are typically very sensitive systems, which can be significantly impacted through changes in water quality. Similarly, water quality is an important factor in planning and developing water recreation opportunities for park visitors (PWA 2002). Water quality and those conditions that influence water quality also will be important to park management. Adaptive measures in habitat restoration could help to determine the responsive and integrative solutions for expanding and stabilizing beach and shoreline areas in the future.
7.9.4 Living Shorelines The artificial rocky shorelines (i.e., riprap, debris and placed rock) in the study area were placed as armoring to stabilize the bay fill and prevent erosion at the water’s edge. In recent years, alternatives to hard structural armoring have been developed that use a more natural “living shorelines” approach
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 59 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
to erosion protection. Living shorelines utilize a suite of bank stabilization and habitat restoration techniques to reinforce the shoreline, minimize erosion, and maintain coastal processes while protecting, enhancing and creating habitat for biological resources (NOAA Restoration Portal; Kimmerer 2009). The concept of Living Shorelines will be considered among potential shoreline enhancement actions at Albany Beach. The enhanced function and connection between subtidal, intertidal, wetland and upland habitats can help to address long-term ecologic values and site sustainability. Evaluation of specific actions should be based on a clear understanding of the physical processes that influence the site and support existing habitat types. Enhancement actions for desired or target habitats should account for existing habitats such as the eelgrass beds and rocky shoreline conditions to ensure that these valuable resources are not compromised. In addition it will be important to determine what habitat types and enhancement goals the Albany Beach site is appropriate for and will be able to support. Specifically, any restoration plans should consider the potential impacts on existing physical processes (wave attenuation, sand accumulation, etc.) and existing resources (eelgrass beds) as a result of new structures within the project limits. See Section 8.6 of this report for further discussion of the potential for incorporating Living Shorelines into enhancement of the Albany Beach area.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 60 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
8.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
8.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an overview of the existing biological resources within the Albany Beach study area. The information provided in this chapter is derived from existing literature and records as well as several site surveys by LSA biologists. A team of four biologists conducted reconnaissance-level surveys of the study area on March 26, 2010. The three to seven-hour field surveys concentrated on a general assessment of the biological resources of the terrestrial and near shore marine environments of the study area and the identification of biological opportunities and constraints for potential restoration and public access improvements. Matt Ricketts and Eric Lichtwardt surveyed for wildlife and their habitats. Leslie Allen and Tim Milliken surveyed and mapped wetlands, plant species and vegetation types. Dr. Katharyn Boyer visited the study area on March 4, 2010 to assess existing eelgrass beds and potential eelgrass habitat. Leslie Allen conducted multiple site visits between November 2009 and May 2010 to confirm the accuracy of the information provided herein.
8.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT 8.2.1 Applicable Federal Laws and Regulations Clean Water Act. The U.S. Army Corps Engineers is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) and include the waters of San Francisco Bay (up to the high tide line), streams that are tributaries to navigable waters, and their adjacent wetlands. The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (33 CFR Part 328.3(e)) or the limit of adjacent wetlands (33 CFR Part 328.3(b)). Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the United States, whether natural or man-made, results in a similar extension of Corps jurisdiction (33 CFR Part 328.5).
Waters of the United States are designated among two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Other waters include waterbodies and watercourses such as coastal waters, estuaries, rivers, streams, lakes, springs, and ponds. Wetlands include marshes, wet meadows, seep areas, floodplains, basins, and other areas experiencing extended seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal pools, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes, are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities. Seasonally inundated water bodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the United States.
Waters and wetlands that cannot trace a continuous hydrological connection to a navigable water of the United States are not tributary to waters of the United States. These are termed “isolated wetlands.” Isolated wetlands are jurisdictional when their destruction or degradation can affect interstate or foreign commerce (33 CFR Part 328.3(a)). The Corps may or may not take jurisdiction over isolated wetlands depending on circumstances.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 61 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill or grading in wetlands or other waters of the United States. At Albany Beach, fill or grading in Corps jurisdiction could result from stabilization of the eroding shoreline on the Neck, reconfiguration of seasonal wetlands for dune expansion, or installation of a ramp into the bay for improved water access. Before issuing a permit for such activities, the Corps will be required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (discussed below) if the action subject to Clean Water Act permitting could result in take of federally listed species.
Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over formally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial and freshwater species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over formally listed marine and anadromous fish species. The ESA protects listed animal species from harm or “take,” which is broadly defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct.” An activity can be defined as a “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection. Plants are legally protected from take under the ESA if the plants are on federal land or if take may result from federal actions, such as issuing a wetland fill permit. As noted above, it is likely that a federal wetland fill permit will be required to implement restoration and/or public access improvements at Albany Beach.
An endangered species is one that is considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The USFWS also maintains a list of species proposed for listing. Proposed species are those for which a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened has been published in the Federal Register. In addition to endangered, threatened, and proposed species, the USFWS maintains a list of candidate species. Candidate (formerly category 1 candidate) species are those for which the USFWS has on file sufficient information to support issuance of a proposed listing rule.
Activities that could result in take of a federally listed threatened or endangered species require an incidental take authorization resulting from a Section 7 consultation or a Section 10 permit. For restoration and public access improvements at Albany Beach, a Section 7 consultation with USFWS and NMFS would be initiated by the Corps prior to issuing a Section 404 permit for fill or grading in wetlands or other waters. Section 7 consultation may result in the issuance of a Biological Opinion specific to the project or in the project being appended to a Programmatic Biological Opinion for a given listed species.
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) establishes a federal responsibility to conserve marine mammals, with management for pinnipeds (other than walrus) and cetaceans vested in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS/NOAA Fisheries) and management for other marine mammals, including sea otters, vested in the USFWS. Among other prohibitions, the Act prohibits the “take” of a marine mammal. In addition to the exceptions explained in the Act, it is unlawful to possess a marine mammal or marine mammal product taken in violation of the Act, or to transport, purchase, sell, import or export a marine mammal.
Prior to issuing a Section 404 permit for fill or grading in wetlands and other waters at Albany Beach, the Corps would initiate a Section 7 consultation with NMFS (and possibly with USFWS). If
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 62 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
activities are proposed that would temporarily disturb marine mammals or their habitat, there may be a need to apply for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) under the MMPA. Noise disturbance during construction is the most likely form of “harassment” that could result from project activities.
Essential Fish Habitat. The 1969 Amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1801 Et Seq.) require the identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for federally managed fishery species and the implementation of measures to conserve and enhance this habitat. Congress defined EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 USC 1802 [10]). Waters include aquatic areas and their physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include areas historically used by fish where appropriate substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying waters, and associated biological communities. Necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem. Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity covers a species’ full life cycle. NMFS/NOAA Fisheries has jurisdiction over EFH and would determine (during Section 7 consultation initiated by the Corps) if the activities proposed at Albany Beach are in compliance with this Act.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. In addition, it contains a clause that prohibits baiting or poisoning of these birds. As used in this Act, the term “take” is defined as meaning, “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” Most of the native bird species that occur in the region of the Eastshore State Park are covered by this Act; therefore, any activity related to restoration and/or public access improvements at Albany Beach that is conducted during the nesting season (~January 1 through August 31) must be implemented in a manner that complies with this act.
8.2.2 Applicable State Laws and Regulations California Endangered Species Act. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has jurisdiction over state-listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species, and state-listed rare plants, under the California Endangered Species Act. In addition, its provisions protect species proposed for listing under the State Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of endangered, threatened, rare, or candidate species without specific authorization from the CDFG. The definition of take under the CESA is less restrictive than under the federal ESA. The CESA defines take as: to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Take under the CESA does not include the federal ESA terms harass and harm. Harm is used under the federal act to include habitat modification.
If there are state-listed species with potential to occur in the project area, CDFG must be contacted for guidance. If the state-listed species are addressed in the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS, CDFG may issue a determination of consistency with Section 2080.1 of the Fish and Game Code. If CDFG determines that the Biological Opinion is not consistent with Section 2080.1, the District may need to apply for an incidental take permit from CDFG.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 63 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
California Fully Protected and Protected Species. California fully protected and protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission and/or the CDFG. Take of fully protected species and protected species is the same as defined under the CESA (see above). “Incidental take” of fully protected species and protected species is not allowed under the Fish and Game Code; the only take authorization for these species is for scientific research purposes. Information on fully protected species can be found in the Fish and Game Code (birds at Section 3511, mammals at Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians at Section 5050, and fish at Section 5515). If there are protected or fully protected species with potential to occur in the project area, implementation of restoration and public access improvements at Albany Beach must be conducted in a manner that avoids take of the species.
California Environmental Quality Act. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to “projects” that are proposed to be undertaken or those requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined actions that have the potential to have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of CEQA, a species not included on any formal list “shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria” for listing. With sufficient documentation, a species could be shown to meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA and be considered a “de facto” endangered species. CDFG maintains a list of species of special concern, defined as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. Species of special concern are not afforded legal protection under the California Endangered Species Act but impacts to these species are typically considered significant under CEQA.
Albany Beach was included in the CEQA review of the Eastshore Project General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR; CDPR et al. 2002c). If the proposed restoration and public access improvements at Albany Beach are consistent with the analysis and species protection measures included in the EIR, no further CEQA review may be necessary.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, projects that require a permit from the Corps under Section 404 must also obtain Water Quality Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This regulatory program is administered by one of nine Regional Boards depending on project location. The RWQCB has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland, streambed, or jurisdictional area. The Albany Beach study area is located in the San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2). An application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be required for improvements at Albany Beach such as stabilization of the eroding shoreline on the Neck, reconfiguration of seasonal wetlands for dune expansion, or installation of a ramp or other material into the bay for improved water access.
8.2.3 Non-Governmental Organizations California Native Plant Society. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a non-governmental conservation organization, has developed lists of special-status plant species considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California (CNPS 2001). Vascular plants included on these lists are defined as follows:
• List 1A Plants considered extinct
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 64 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
• List 1B Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere • List 2 Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere • List 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list • List 4 Plants of limited distribution - watch list
CNPS List 1 and 2 species are generally considered under CEQA because they meet CEQA’s definition of “rare or endangered.” Impacts to List 3 and 4 species are generally not considered significant under CEQA unless local jurisdictions request that they be addressed or specific information on their status and/or distribution supports their consideration for a given project. If CNPS-listed plant species are likely to occur in the Albany Beach study area, potential impacts on and mitigation for such species must be addressed as part of the CEQA review process.
8.2.4 Relevant Plan Policies Guidelines, goals and policies relevant to biological resources in the study area are summarized below. A complete list of the guidelines, goals and policies relevant to this section is provided on pages 11-16 of Table A-1 (Appendix A).
Eastshore State Park General Plan. The Park General Plan includes 8 goals and 40 guidelines relevant to biological resources in the Albany Beach study area. Some important themes among them include:
• Preservation and enhancement of native plant and animal communities • Re-introduction of rare and endangered plant species • Avoidance and minimization of impacts to special-status plant and animal species • Avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands • Enhancement and expansion of existing wetlands • Protection and expansion of sandy beaches and dunes • Protection and enhancement of known or potential shorebird roost sites, including piers and pilings • Minimization of disturbance to wildlife and sensitive habitats by restricting access by people and dogs • Use of fencing and vegetative buffers between trails and sensitive habitat areas • Practice of pest control activities (e.g., rats, red fox, feral cats) • Protection and expansion of eelgrass beds in tidal waters • Post signs identifying restrictions on fishing and collection of invertebrates • Encourage beach/Bay access for non-motorized watercraft at the south end of Albany Beach
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 65 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
• Discourage launching of non-motorized watercraft from environmentally sensitive areas of the shoreline
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Master Plan includes 10 similar guidelines pertaining to the protection and management of biological resources.
City of Albany General Plan. As mentioned previously, Albany Beach and other Eastshore State Park lands co-owned by the District and the State of California are not subject to City municipal codes or plans; however, this Feasibility Study acknowledges and reviews such policies that are relevant to the study area. The City General Plan includes one goal and three policies pertaining to biological resources. These are fairly general in scope; however, one policy calls for consideration of wildlife and vegetation resources that must be adequately protected when developing the alignment of the Bay Trail. This is relevant to the Albany Beach Feasibility Study because the study area includes a proposed Bay Trail segment that would close the gap in the Bay Trail between Buchanan and Gilman Streets.
8.3 EXISTING VEGETATION AND SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES 8.3.1 Existing Vegetation and Habitat Types Terrestrial vegetation and associated wildlife habitats in the study area are dominated by ruderal vegetation and ornamental trees and shrubs. Ruderal refers to vegetation that occurs on disturbed land and is generally dominated by non-native weedy plant species. The vegetation types and plant species identified in the study area were characterized and named, to the greatest extent possible, according to A Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). The classification presented in the Manual is based on the National Vegetation Classification Hierarchy. The lower levels of the hierarchy are the focus of this report. Alliances have both a common and scientific name; in the discussion below the common name of the alliance appears first and the scientific follows in parentheses. Alliances are defined and named by the dominant species; however, many alliances exhibit variation in subdominant species composition and structure. In the Manual these variations in species composition and structure are termed Associations. Each alliance has at least one association, but many alliances have multiple associations. The Manual also identifies semi-natural stands; these are vegetation types dominated by non-native species that have become naturalized in California. The Manual does not identify ruderal vegetation or ornamental plants that have not become naturalized as semi-natural stands.
Habitats that are not defined on the basis of dominant plant species, such as sandy beaches or rocky shoreline, also are present in the study area. Terrestrial and aquatic vegetation and habitat types in the study area are mapped in Figure 19 and described below. Terrestrial vegetation and habitats above the high tide line were mapped in the field using aerial photo interpretation and/or a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Submerged vegetation (i.e., eelgrass) was mapped using existing data from a 2009 sidescan sonar survey (Merkel and Associates 2009, in review).
Ruderal Vegetation. Ruderal vegetation is not a natural community but refers to a general category of vegetation that occurs in developed areas and disturbed landscapes and is typically dominated by weedy, non-native (alien) plant species. Ruderal vegetation may consist of shrubs, broadleaved
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 66 FIGURE 19 Study Area Ruderal Vegetation Gum Plant Patches (Grindelia stricta Herbaceous Alliance) Developed Seasonal Wetland Coast Live Oak Salt Grass Flats (Quercus agrifolia) Trail (Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Alliance) Pickleweed Albany Beach Rip-rapped or Rocky Shoreline Dune Mat (Sarcocornia pacifica) (Ambrosia chamissonis Herbaceous Alliance) Restoration and Natural Rocky Shoreline Arroyo Willow Public Access Poison Oak Scrub (Salix lasiolepis) (Toxicodendron diversilobum Shrubland Alliance) Feasibility Study Pier Pilings Blue Elderberry Eucalyptus Grove Sambucus nigra Eucalytpus ( ) Sandy Beach/Dune ( Semi-natural Woodland Stand) Ice Plant Mat San Francisco Bay (Carpobrotus edulis Semi-natural Herbaceous Stand) Eelgrass Bed* Myoporum Grove 0 150 300 (Zostera marina) (Myoporum laetum Semi-natural Woodland Stand) Existing Vegetation FEET *Source: Merkel and Associates, Inc, 2009 and Habitat Types Note: All mapping units to scale except points. SOURCES: Parcels from Alameda County. Aerial from DigitalGlobe (April 1, 2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Feasibility Study\Figure19_HabitatMap.mxd (9/27/2010) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
species and grasses. This vegetation type is widely distributed throughout the study area (approximately 6.34 acres).
At the northern portion of the study area, the Albany Neck is entirely vegetated by ruderal scrub, including a wide variety of ornamental species that may have been planted on the capped landfill. Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is the only native shrub species that is co-dominant with non- native trees and shrubs in this area. Other native trees and shrubs are so few on the slopes above the trails that their locations are individually mapped in Figure 19. These include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Non-native trees and shrubs that are dominant in this part of the study area include blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), kangaroo thorn (Acacia paradoxa), French broom (Genista monspessulana), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), and pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.). Where trees and shrubs are not present, vegetation is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs, such as soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), black mustard (Brassica nigra), Italian thistle (Carduus pyncocephalus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae).
Ruderal vegetation also is the dominant vegetation/habitat type at the entrance point to the Albany Beach area from the parking lot at the western terminus of the Buchanan Street extension. Most of this area is open grassland characterized by annual species such as hare barley (Hordeum murinum), blue grass (Poa annua), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and fennel. A few ornamental trees appear to have been planted near the parking lot, including several Torrey pines (Pinus torreyana), red flowering gum (Eucalyptus ficifolia) and Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus).
A long, narrow strip of ruderal vegetation separates the beach and the southern shoreline from the gravel parking area behind Golden Gate Fields. This highly disturbed habitat is characterized by typical weedy upland species intermixed with native and non-native coastal species. Hare barley, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandenstinum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and African daisy (Osteospermum ecklonis) can be found growing next to small patches of New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonioides), sea rocket (Cakile maritima) and iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis). Native coastal species identified in this area are individually mapped in Figure 19 and include beach bur-sage (Ambrosia chamissonis), gumplant (Grindelia stricta) and pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica).
Ruderal vegetation is also the dominant cover type at Fleming Point, which is the only remnant within the study area of the historic shoreline before bay fill occurred. Australian tea tree (Leptospermum laevigatum), most likely planted as an ornamental at Golden Gate Fields in the past, has become naturalized at Fleming Point, where it is a dominant species along with French broom (LSA 2002c). Characteristic herbaceous species in this area include wild oats (Avena sp.), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and vetch (Vicia sp.).
Dune Mat (Abronia latifolia-Ambrosia chamissonis Herbaceous Alliance). This vegetation type is characterized by one or two dominant native species: yellow sand verbena (Abronia latifolia) and/or beach bur-sage (Ambrosia chamissonis). It occurs on sand dunes of coastal bars, river mouths, and spits along the immediate coastline of California. In the project study area, this vegetation type (approximately 0.05 acre) occurs in small patches throughout the small dunes at Albany Beach. These
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 68 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
areas are rarely impacted by saltwater overwash during storms. The dominant species are non-woody and well adapted to the nutrient-poor, rapidly draining conditions of dune sand. Beach bur-sage is the dominant native species everywhere this vegetation is mapped in Figure 19; however, the species composition varies from sand-mound to sand-mound and often includes non-native species such as Kikuyu grass, Bermuda grass, sea rocket, New Zealand spinach, ice plant, or annual grasses. Yellow sand verbena is not present in the study area.
Ice Plant Mats (Carpobrotus edulis Semi-natural Herbaceous Stands). Ice plant is a ground- hugging non-native succulent that invades dunes and other coastal habitats in California. This species occurs patchily throughout the study area but is concentrated (approximately 0.29 acre) on the dunes at Albany Beach, where it forms large impenetrable mats that have been holding the dunes in place for many years.
Salt Grass Flats (Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Alliance). This vegetation type occurs in coastal salt marshes, swales, and terraces along washes that are typically intermittently flooded. Salt grass, a native rhizomatous grass, is the dominant species and is often associated with other species that are tolerant of alkaline soils. This vegetation type occurs at Albany Beach in one of two seasonal wetlands that have developed within a network of interdune swales west of the gravel parking area behind Golden Gate Fields. The vegetation in the smaller wetland (240 square feet) consists predominantly of salt grass; therefore, this wetland is mapped as Salt Grass Flats in Figure 19, unlike the larger wetland which is mapped as Seasonal Wetland, described below.
Gum Plant Patches (Grindelia stricta Provisional Herbaceous Alliance). Gumplant is a native perennial glandular composite with showy, yellow flowers and a woody stem when mature. It grows on slightly elevated or drier ground that is adjacent to coastal dunes, salt marshes, or alkaline marshes (Sawyer et al. 2009). It is one of the more abundant native species in the study area; individual plants and patches are mapped as points in Figure 19.
Poison Oak Scrub (Toxicodendron diversilobum Shrubland Alliance). Poison oak constitutes a scrub community where it grows in dense stands, as it often does on the coast both in moist areas that receive salt-laden fog and on disturbed dry slopes. At least one small patch in the study area is located within the ruderal vegetation on the Albany Neck. A substantially larger and older stand (approximately 0.04 acre) is located on the steep west-facing bluffs at Fleming Point. Here, the poison oak is dense and gnarled, having been shaped by wind blowing landward off the bay. Also present in this scrub community at Fleming Point are coyote brush, a common native scrub species in the East Bay, and seaside woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum staechadifolium), a native scrub species which occurs at only a few locations in the East Bay (Brad Olson, pers. obs.).
Eucalyptus Grove (Eucalyptus globulus Semi-natural Woodland Stands). A large blue gum eucalyptus grove (approximately 0.41 acre) is located where the landward edge of the Albany Beach dune area meets the parking lot and trail junction. The trees at the center of the grove are mature and at least 30 feet high. What little vegetation there is growing underneath the canopy consists predominantly of non-native species, including cheeseweed, annual blue grass, roadside brome (Bromus stamineus), and pineapple weed (Chamomilla suaveolens).
Myoporum Grove (Myoporum laetum Semi-Natural Woodland Stands). Myoporum is an escaped ornamental tree that forms dense, single-species stands in coastal areas of California. Its purple fruits
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 69 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
are attractive to birds, which disperse them (Sawyer et al. 2009). While individuals of this species occur sporadically among the ruderal vegetation on the Albany Neck, a large dense grove is located immediately east of the blue gum eucalyptus grove near the Buchanan Street parking area. This vegetation type is listed in Sawyer et al. (2009) under pepper tree or myoporum groves (Schinus molle, terebinthifolius – Myoperum laetum Semi-Natural Woodland Stands); however, no pepper tree occurs in the grove described above.
Seasonal Wetlands. Two seasonal wetlands have developed at Albany Beach within a network of interdune swales west of the gravel parking area behind Golden Gate Fields. Precipitation and runoff from the parking area collect in these swales for several days during and after heavy storms. The runoff carries silt and sediment into the swales, creating a shallow lens of water-retaining soil on top of rapidly draining sand. The vegetation in the larger wetland (1,090 square feet) consists predominantly of non-native grasses and herbaceous species, including Bermuda grass, Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), cutleaf plantain (Plantago coronopus), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). This wetland is mapped as Seasonal Wetland in Figure 19. The smaller wetland is mapped as Salt Grass Flat, described above.
Sandy Beaches/Dunes. The study area includes three sandy beaches (approximately 2.07 acres). The smallest two beaches are located in the southern portion, just north of Fleming Point. These smaller pocket beaches abut riprapped shoreline and support little or no dune/beach vegetation. Albany Beach is the largest of the three beaches. This beach is characterized by a substantial deposit of large woody debris at the high tide line, beyond which is located a small complex of vegetated and unvegetated dunes (vegetated dunes are described above). These sandy beaches are dynamic areas subject to wave action, sediment transport, and longshore drift (see Section 7.0 Physical Processes). These physical factors may drastically change the profile of the beach and influence the associated beach organisms as well as the adjacent subtidal habitat. The sandy beaches within the study are important habitats because of their limited distribution along the East Bay shoreline.
Riprap or Rocky Shoreline. Much of the study area shoreline is comprised of concrete or rock riprap placed to prevent shoreline erosion. The riprap along the North Shore consists of a conglomeration of concrete blocks, slabs, and other hard debris. The rocky shoreline between Albany Beach and Fleming Point Pier primarily consists of native and imported rock and cobble riprap that was likely placed during construction of Golden Gate Fields, although scattered concrete slabs are also present. The lower elevation portions of the rocky shoreline are intertidal and support sparse to dense communities of marine flora. The predominant vegetation within the rocky intertidal habitat are seaweeds or macro-algae (non-vascular plants), particularly green algae (Division Chlorophyta) and red algae (Division Rhodophyta). Two species of commonly occurring green algae, Ulva lactuca and U. intestinalis, were observed in most of the intertidal zone during the March 26, 2010 reconnaissance survey. Scattered clumps of red algae are attached to many of the pieces of riprap and debris; Endocladia muricata, Mastocarpus spp., and Bangia fusco-purpurea are three species that were formally documented in the study area in 2001 (LSA 2002b). Rockweed (Fucus distichus), a brown alga (Division Phaeophyta), is common on the riprap along the Albany Neck shoreline. Above the high tide line, the riprapped and rocky shoreline supports some ruderal vegetation and gum plant patches, as described above.
Natural Rocky Shoreline. One noteworthy area of rocky shoreline within the study area is at Fleming Point, where naturally occurring bedrock is present. This stretch of shoreline is one of the
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 70 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
few remaining natural features along the East Bay shoreline (LSA 2002b). Not only is Fleming Point unique because of its natural rock formation, but it also supports a diversity of rocky intertidal organisms that is among the highest in the region. Numerous red algae, including Rhodoglossum affine, Ceramium sp., Ralfsia sp., and Gracilaria spp., were formally documented at Fleming Point in 2001 but not observed at any other location within Eastshore State Park (LSA 2002b). Similarly, marine invertebrates such as littorine snails (Littorina spp.), bryozoans, polychaete worms, encrusting sponges, and splash zone isopods (Ligia occidentalis) were only observed at Fleming Point in 2001 surveys. Above the high tide line, terrestrial vegetation at Fleming Point includes ruderal vegetation and poison oak scrub, as described above.
Pier Pilings. Two derelict piers occur in the study area, just north of Fleming Point. Fleming Point Pier is the largest and most visible; the second pier or dock is located 100 feet north of the larger pier. Their remains consist of partially submerged concrete blocks and wood pilings, which provide substrate for a suite of sessile and mobile organisms. The species of algae and invertebrates typically associated with such structures are similar to those previously described for the Rocky Shoreline habitat. Fishes, especially perches, are also usually present and are considered representative members of the “piling community.” In addition to providing substrate for algae, invertebrates, and fish, the piers, pilings and breakwaters provide perch and roost sites for a variety of birds. The remnant structures of Fleming Point Pier serve as important roost sites for shorebirds, gulls, and other waterbirds (see Section 8.4 Existing Wildlife and Special-Status animals).
Eelgrass Beds. A valued aquatic resource, eelgrass (Zostera marina), occurs within the study area. This submerged vascular plant occurs in approximately 3,700 acres of San Francisco Estuary, with nearly half of the area between Point Pinole and Point San Pablo (Wyllie-Echeverria and Rutten 1989; Merkel and Associates 2004, 2009 in review). Within the study area, approximately 0.7 acre was present in 2003 according to a survey using sidescan sonar (Merkel and Associates 2004). The acreage of eelgrass within the study area increased to 3.75 acres between 2003 and 2009, according to a survey using the same methods in fall 2009 (Merkel and Associates 2009, in review). The 2009 survey results are depicted in Figure 19. A bay-wide expansion in eelgrass acreage is evident from this draft report and personal observations of this section’s author (K. Boyer, San Francisco State University), perhaps reflecting the mild winters and resulting low turbidity in the Bay of the past several years.
8.3.2 Special-Status Plant Species Prior to conducting field work, LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFG 2010), the Consortium of California Herbaria (Consortium 2010), and the CNPS Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2010) to locate records of special-status plant in the general region of the Albany Beach project site. Using information from these databases and staff knowledge of the San Francisco Bay shoreline vegetation, LSA developed and evaluated a list of potentially occurring special-status species.
During the March 26, 2010 field survey, LSA’s botanist made an assessment of the current habitat conditions and evaluated the site’s potential to support special-status plant species and sensitive plant communities. The scientific and vernacular nomenclature for the plant species used in this section are from the following standard sources: Hickman (1993); California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2010) on-line inventory of rare and endangered plants; and Beidleman and Kozloff (2003).
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 71 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Five (5) special-status plant species have the potential to occur in plant communities similar to those in the Albany Beach study area. These “target” species include those that might occur in the natural vegetation communities present on the site (i.e., coastal scrub, sandy beaches and dunes, and rocky coastline). Four of these species are limited to salt marsh, tidal sloughs and coastal wetlands: soft bird's-beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis), Mason’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii), California sea- blite (Suaeda californica), and Suisun marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum). Another potentially occurring target species associated with coastal dune and scrub communities is robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta). These five species and their potential to occur in the study area are summarized in Table 8.1 and described below.
Robust spineflower is a federally endangered annual herb that occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, chaparral, and cismontane woodland. Coastal scrub and dune habitat is present in the Albany Beach study area; however, the mixed fill soils and steep slopes of the coastal scrub and the dense infestations by non-native plants in the dunes do not provide suitable microhabitat for this species. Furthermore, this species is thought to be extirpated from the San Francisco Bay region and has not been reported in Alameda County since collections made in the 1890s near Alameda (CNDDB 2010). Currently there are only 11 populations, all located in Santa Cruz County over a range of approximately 21 miles (USFWS 2010a).
Soft bird's-beak is a federally listed endangered and state-listed rare annual herb that is known from fewer than 15 occurrences (CNPS 2010). The nearest CNDDB occurrences are from the Point Pinole and Mare Island areas. This species is not expected to occur in the study area due to lack of tidal marsh habitat.
Mason’s lilaeopsis is a state-listed rare, perennial herb that is found on silty soils on eroding brackish slough banks, and occasionally on old wharf pilings. The closest CNDDB occurrences are from around Mare Island in Solano County. This species requires brackish waters with salt concentrations that are lower than those at the Albany Beach site. There is no slough habitat on site, and the existing pilings are not degraded enough to support this species. It is unlikely that Mason’s lilaeopsis would naturally occur on the site.
California sea-blite is a federally endangered, salt-tolerant perennial shrub native to only two localities: Morro Bay and San Francisco Bay. The primary natural habitat of this species is a very narrow high tide zone along sandy salt marsh edges or estuarine beaches (Baye 2006). The nearest natural occurrence identified in the CNDDB is a 1912 record from the Fleming Point area. Because this species’ habitat has been severely disturbed throughout its range, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sponsored recent efforts to re-establish California sea-blite at restored tidal sites within the San Francisco Bay (Presidio 2004; CNDDB 2010; LSA 2009). The nearest re-introduced population is located at the Emeryville Crescent Marsh, approximately 4 miles south of Albany Beach. This population was transplanted in 2007 and 8 reproducing colonies were observed by monitors in 2008 (USFWS 2010b). This re-introduced population is too far to be a likely source of propagules for natural recruitment at Albany Beach. This distance and the highly disturbed, narrow shoreline conditions in the study area make it unlikely for California sea-blite to occur in the study area now or in the future (Baye, personal communication).
Suisun marsh aster is a CNPS List 1B perennial rhizomatous herb in the sunflower family that occurs in freshwater and brackish marsh habitat. This species is endemic to Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 72 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
San Joaquin river delta (CNPS 2001) and was historically know from the East Bay portion of the San Francisco Bay area (CSCC 2003). The nearest extant population identified by the CNDDB is in a seasonally wet area at Point Molate in West Richmond. Seasonal wetland habitat is present on the site; however, it is unlikely that the highly disturbed study area provides the microhabitat suitable for this species.
Twelve (12) other plant species were considered in the assessment but are unlikely to occur, as they are either considered extirpated from Alameda County or they require a habitat different than those present in the study area. Species considered that are unlikely to occur include alkali milk vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), San Francisco spineflower (Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata), Bolander’s water-hemlock (Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi), Point Reyes bird's-beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris), delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliaecea), Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), Kellogg’s horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), Antioch Dunes evening primrose (Oenothera deltoids ssp. howellii), Gairdner’s yampah (Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri), and adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima).
8.4 EXISTING WILDLIFE AND SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMALS The published sources of the scientific and vernacular nomenclature of animal species used in this report are: fishes, Nelson et al. (2004); amphibians and reptiles, Crother (2008); birds, American Ornithologists’ Union (1998) and supplements through the fiftieth, American Ornithologists’ Union (2009), bird species of special concern subspecies names follow Shuford and Gardali (2008); and mammals, Baker et al. (2003) and Reid (2006) and recent literature. For animals, subspecies names are used only if a subspecies is considered a special-status species by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (CDFG 2009).
8.4.1 Wildlife Fish. Inshore waters and mudflats adjacent to and in the study area are used by a number of game fish species such as California halibut (Paralichthys califonicus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Smaller schooling fish, such as topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) and Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), would be expected in deeper water in the study area and are important as food for game fish and fish-eating birds. The longjaw mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis), a typical species of shallow bays and mud flats, is also likely present in the study area. Elasmobranchs typical of near shore waters in San Francisco Bay include leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), brown smoothound (Mustelus henlei), and bat ray (Myliobatis californicus) (Ebert 2003); all of these species likely occur in the study area. The sevengill shark (Notorynchus cepedianus), a large powerful predator, also occurs in San Francisco Bay and will forage in shallow water (Ebert 2003); this species may also occasionally occur in the study area.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 73 LSA ASSOASSOCIATES,CIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Table 8.1: Special-status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of Albany Beach, Eastshore State Park, California
Status* Species (Federal/State/ Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Other) Plants Robust spineflower FE/–/CNPS 1B Marine chaparral, coastal dunes, and Robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta) is a federally Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta sandy or gravely soils in coastal scrub. endangered annual herb that historically occurred in coastal dunes, coastal April-September scrub, chaparral, and cismontane woodland. Degraded coastal scrub and dune habitat is present in the Albany Beach study area but does not provide suitable microhabitat for this species. Furthermore, this species is thought to be extirpated from the San Francisco Bay area and has not been reported in Alameda County since the time collections were made in the 1890s. Not likely to occur. Soft bird's-beak FE/SR/CNPS 1B Salt marsh Soft bird’s beak is federally listed endangered, and state-listed rare annual herb Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis July-September that is known from fewer than 15 occurrences (CNPS 2010). The nearest CNDDB occurrences are form the Point Pinole and Mare Island areas. Not likely to occur due to lack of tidal marsh habitat. Mason's lilaeopsis –/SR/CNPS 1B Tidal zone of freshwater and brackish Mason’s lilaeopsis is a state-listed rare, perennial herb that is found on silty Lilaeopsis masonii marshes. soils on eroding brackish slough banks, and occasionally on old wharf pilings. June-August The closest CNDDB occurrences are from around Mare Island in Solano County. This species requires brackish waters with salt concentrations that are probably lower than at the salinity of the water at Albany Beach. There is no slough habitat on site, and the existing pilings are not degraded enough to support this species. Not expected to occur due to lack of suitable tidal marsh habitat. California sea-blite FE/–/CNPS 1B July-October California sea-blite is a federally endangered, perennial shrub that occurs in a Suaeda californica very narrow high tide zone along sandy salt marsh edges or estuarine beaches. Closest CNDDB occurrence is a 1912 record from Fleming Point area. Habitat has been severely disturbed throughout its range. Several recent occurrences at restored tidal sites within the San Francisco Bay are too far for passive recruitment in the Albany Beach study area. Not likely to occur. Suisun marsh aster –/–/CNPS 1B Brackish and freshwater marshes and Suisun marsh aster is a perennial rhizomatous herb that occurs in freshwater Symphyotrichum lentum swamps, most often seen along and brackish marsh habitat. The nearest extant CNDDB population of this sloughs. plant is from a seasonally wet area at Point Molate in West Richmond. May-November Seasonal wetland habitat is present on the site, yet it’s unlikely that this area provides suitable microhabitat required for this species.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 74 LSA ASSOASSOCIATES,CIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Status* Species (Federal/State/ Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Other) Fish Green sturgeon, Southern DPS FT/–/– Near shore marine waters, bays and May occasionally visit Bay waters within study area. Acipenser medirostris estuaries, spawns in rivers in deep fast water over large cobbles, but also clean sand to bedrock. Southern most spawning population in the Sacramento River. Tidewater goby FE/–/CSC Fresh to brackish shallow lagoons and No suitable habitat present, not expected to occur. Considered extirpated from Eucyclogobius newberryi lower stream reaches with still, but not San Francisco Bay (Moyle 2002), but some small populations may persist stagnant, water (Leidy 2007). Chinook salmon (Sacramento FE/–/– Anadromous: spawns in Sacramento May occasionally visit Bay waters within study area. River winter-run ESU2) River system; occurs in small numbers Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in Central Bay Chinook salmon (Central Valley FT/–/– Anadromous: spawns in Sacramento May occasionally visit Bay waters within study area. spring-run ESU) River system; occurs in small numbers in Central Bay Steelhead (central California coast FT/–/– Anadromous: spawns in coastal May occasionally visit Bay waters within study area. ESU) streams in fall and winter; occurs in Oncorynchus mykiss small numbers in Central Bay Coho salmon (central California FE/–/– Anadromous: spawns in coastal May occasionally visit Bay waters within study area. ESU) streams in fall and winter Oncorhynchus kisutch Birds California brown pelican –/–/CFP Coastal shorelines and bays; rarely Known to forage in shallow subtidal portions of Eastshore State Park (LSA Pelecanus occidentalis found on fresh water 2002a), including study area waters. Individuals may occasionally roost on californicus Fleming Point Pier. White-tailed kite –/–/CFP Open grasslands, meadows, or Marginal nesting and foraging habitat present at Albany Bulb, but unlikely to Elanus leucurus marshes; requires dense-topped trees nest in ruderal scrub in study area due to ongoing disturbance associated with or shrubs for nesting and perching trail users and pets. Nesting has been documented in the vicinity of Berkeley Meadow approximately 1.6 miles south of the study area (CDFG 2010), but not in recent years. Northern harrier –/–/CSC Nests in wet meadows and marshes, Marginal foraging habitat present at Albany Plateau, but limited in study area. Circus cyaneus forages over open grasslands and Not expected to nest on or near study area due to ongoing disturbance agricultural fields associated with trail users and pets. Historically known to nest in northwestern corner of Berkeley Meadow (CDFG 2010; LSA 2002a), but not in recent years.
2 ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers an ESU a “species” under the Endangered Species Act.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 75 LSA ASSOASSOCIATES,CIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Status* Species (Federal/State/ Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Other) American peregrine falcon –/–/CFP A variety of open habitats including May occasionally forage over study area shoreline but not expected to nest due Falco peregrinus anatum coastlines, mountains, marshes, bay to lack of suitable nest sites on or adjacent to study area. Known to occasionally shorelines, and urban areas; nests on forage over Albany Mudflats (LSA 2002a). cliffs, bridges, and tall buildings California black rail –/ST/CFP Salt marshes bordering larger bays, Not expected to occur due to lack of marsh habitat. Laterallus jamaicensis also found in brackish and freshwater coturniculus marshes California clapper rail FE/SE/CFP Tidal salt marshes with sloughs and Not expected to occur due to lack of tidal marsh habitat. Rallus longirostris obsoletus substantial cordgrass (Spartina sp.) cover California least tern FE/SE/CFP Sandy beaches, alkali flats, hard-pan Occasionally forages over Bay waters in study area between April and July. Sterna antillarum browni surfaces (salt ponds). Observed nesting on created shell islands just south of Central Avenue in Albany in 2000 (LSA obs.), approximately 0.6 mile north of study area. Burrowing owl –/–/CSC Open habitats (e.g., grasslands, Wintering individuals may occasionally use concrete rip-rap along the southern Athene cunicularia agricultural areas) with mammal shoreline of the Neck, which provides marginal roosting habitat. Has been burrows or other features (e.g., observed wintering at scattered locations in study area vicinity, including culverts, pipes, debris piles) suitable Albany Bulb, Cesar Chavez Park, North Basin Strip, and Berkeley Meadow for nesting and roosting. (LSA 2002a, obs.; EBRPD obs. 2009 and 2010), but no nesting confirmed to date. Salt marsh common yellowthroat –/–/CSC Salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes; Not expected to occur due to lack of marsh habitat. Geothlypis trichas sinuosa and riparian woodlands. Nests on or near ground in low vegetation. Alameda song sparrow –/–/CSC Tidal salt marshes on the fringes of Not expected to nest in study area due to lack of tidal marsh habitat, but Melospiza melodia pusillula south and central San Francisco Bay. individuals from nearby marsh populations may occasionally forage or disperse Nests primarily in pickleweed and through area. Song sparrow heard in study area ruderal scrub during LSA gumplant. reconnaissance survey may have been a stray individual from nearby marshes fringing Albany Mudflats, or may have belonged to upland gouldii subspecies. Mammals Salt-marsh harvest mouse FE/SE/CFP Tidal salt marshes of San Francisco Not expected to occur due to lack of tidal marsh habitat. Reithrodontomys raviventris Bay and its tributaries. Requires tall, dense pickleweed for cover. California sea lion –/–/MMPA Coastal waters. Haul out on offshore May occasionally forage in Bay waters in study area but not expected to haul Zalophus californianus rocks, sloping rock outcrops, beaches, out due to ongoing disturbance associated with trail users and pets. jetties, and buoys. Harbor seal –/–/MMPA Nearshore marine waters, bays, and May occasionally forage in Bay waters in study area but not expected to haul Phoca vitulina estuaries. Haul out on emergent out due to ongoing disturbance associated with trail users and pets. offshore and tidal rocks, mudflats, sandbars, and beaches.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 76 LSA ASSOASSOCIATES,CIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Status* Species (Federal/State/ Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Other) Southern sea otter FT/–/CFP Nearshore marine waters off California Stray individuals may occasionally venture into study area but such occurrences Enhydra lutris nereis coast from Point Conception to Half are expected to be rare and short in duration. One such individual was observed Moon Bay. Favors kelp beds for on January 8, 2002, swimming and diving just offshore from the southwest end shelter from high surf and predators. of the Albany Bulb (J. Blomberg and J. Haltiner, personal communication, cited in LSA 2002a). * Status Codes: FT = Federally listed as threatened FE = Federally listed as endangered SE = State-listed as endangered ST = State-listed as threatened CNPS 1B = California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B: plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CNPS 2 = CNPS List 2: plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CNPS 3 = CNPS List 3: plants about which more information is needed to assign them to a list CNPS 4 = CNPS List 4: plants of limited distribution – a watch list CFP = California Fully Protected Species CSC = California Species of Special Concern MMPA = protected by Marine Mammal Protection Act -- = no status
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 77 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Numerous other fish species are potentially present in the near shore waters of the study area, particularly where eelgrass beds are present. Many invertebrate species are harbored among eelgrass beds. These invertebrates provide food resources for resident fishes such as the bay pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) and shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata) (L. Carr and K. Boyer, unpublished data). Eelgrass is known to serve as spawning and nursery habitat for Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) (Spratt 1981), the primary commercial fishery species in the Bay. Local eelgrass beds probably provide food and shelter for out-migrating juveniles of several diadromous fish species as in the Pacific Northwest (Simenstad 1994); acoustic monitoring devices show visitation of tagged Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to eelgrass and oyster reef structures at the Marin Rod and Gun Club, just north of the Richmond - San Rafael Bridge (B. Abbott, Environ Corp., unpublished data). Such devices are planned for installation not far from the project site, just off the north end of Cesar Chavez Park in Berkeley, at an upcoming oyster shell and eelgrass pilot restoration project (B. Abbott, K. Boyer, and others), and these could be helpful in determining the degree of visitation in the vicinity of Albany Beach.
Several special-status fish species occur in San Francisco Bay (Table 8.1), including many distinctive populations of salmon and steelhead, that have unique genetically based adaptations to local and regional environments (Moyle 2002). Some of these distinctive populations, often referred to as runs or stocks, are recognized by the resources agencies as evolutionarily significant units (ESU). Several ESUs of salmon and steelhead could occur in the waters adjacent to the study area on occasion. While juveniles of these species may find suitable habitat in eelgrass beds, generally these species would be expected in the deeper water channels of the bay. The green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) is another special-status fish species (Table 8.1) that could occasionally occur in the study area, but as with salmon and steelhead this anadromous species generally is found in deeper water channels.
Amphibians and Reptiles. The concrete debris and riprap along the Neck in the northern portion of the study area provide shelter and basking habitat for western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), a reptile that is common throughout the Bay Area. No other amphibians or reptiles were observed during LSA’s reconnaissance survey, although common urban-adapted species such as California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), and southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata) are expected to occur wherever suitable cover is present. The seasonal wetlands at Albany Beach are not inundated for a long enough period to provide breeding habitat for treefrogs or other amphibians.
Birds. LSA biologists observed 40 species of birds during the March 26 reconnaissance survey (Appendix G). However, up to 140 bird species have been recorded in Eastshore State Park (GGA 2006), and with the exception of species that primarily occur in tidal marsh, most of these can be expected to occur on or adjacent to the study area on at least an occasional basis. The timing of LSA’s survey coincided with the beginning of the breeding season for many terrestrial land birds, so most species detected in the ruderal scrub north of the Albany Neck shoreline likely nest there or in adjacent areas (i.e., Albany Bulb). The dense shrubs and small trees in this area, although primarily non-native, provide nesting and foraging habitat for native bird species typical of less disturbed coyote brush scrub throughout the central California coast bioregion, including Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and Nuttall’s white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys nuttallii). During the winter, these year-round residents are joined by species that breed further north, such as ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), yellow-rumped warbler
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 78 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
(Dendroica coronata), and golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), as well other subspecies of white-crowned sparrow.
Although not present within the study area, tidal mudflats such as those north of the Albany Plateau provide valuable foraging habitat for large concentrations of shorebirds that migrate through or winter in the San Francisco Bay Estuary from July through early May. Western and least sandpiper (Calidris mauri, C. minutilla), dunlin (Calidris alpina), dowitchers (Limnodromus spp.), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), and willet (Tringa semipalmata) are some of the more abundant shorebird species known to occur in the San Francisco Bay Estuary during these periods (Stenzel et al. 2006), and all of these species are common to abundant at Eastshore State Park (GGA 2006; LSA obs.). During high tides when mudflats are unavailable for foraging, shorebirds roost on old piers, remnant dock structures, breakwaters, and other barren areas above the high tide line that are free of disturbance (LSA 2002b). Within the study area, old pier pilings and adjacent rocks provide such high-tide shorebird roosting habitat, as evidenced by the observation of hundreds of western sandpipers, dowitchers, dunlin, willets, and other shorebirds using these structures during the March 26, 2010 reconnaissance survey. These structures also provide roosting habitat for gulls, terns, and cormorants.
The rocky shoreline that characterizes much of the area between Albany Beach and Fleming Point provides habitat for shorebird species that favor rocky intertidal habitats, such as black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani), black and ruddy turnstones (Arenaria melanocephala, A. interpres), and surfbird (Aphriza virgata), although the latter two are considered rare in Eastshore State Park (GGA 2006). The presence of such rocky shore specialists is somewhat noteworthy for this location given that none of these species are abundant in San Francisco Bay, numbering at most in the low hundreds (Takekawa et al. 1999).
Many birds forage for invertebrates, fish, and fish roe in the Bay’s eelgrass beds, particularly during winter and spring migration, including Forster’s (Sterna forsteri), least (Sternula antillarum browni), and elegant terns (Sterna elegans), double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), and several shorebird and diving duck species (S. Wainwright-de la Cruz, USGS, personal communication). While Brant geese (Branta bernicla) are important eelgrass grazers along the Pacific Coast, they are not currently found in San Francisco Bay in numbers; only one pair has been sited in recent years (near the Richmond Marina). Canada geese (Branta canadensis) have been observed consuming eelgrass at a number of locations around the Bay (Boyer, pers. obs.; S. Kiriakopolos, San Francisco State University masters thesis, in progress).
The open waters of San Francisco Bay within the study area provide foraging and resting (rafting) habitat for various species of gulls, terns, grebes, loons, and double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Diving ducks such as greater and lesser scaup (Aythya marila, A. affinis), surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), winter in large numbers on San Francisco Bay and occasionally venture into study area waters. These species may also forage among the riprap and abandoned pilings in the study area, as these features often provide surfaces that attract prey such as mussels, barnacles, small fish, and various crustaceans (Evens 2005). Dabbling ducks such as mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American wigeon (Anas americana), and gadwall (Anas strepera) are also likely to occur in the study area as they rest or feed on the vegetation and small invertebrates associated with shallow subtidal waters or tidal mudflats. Wading birds such as great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), and
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 79 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
snowy egret (Egretta thula) forage along the study area shoreline for small fish, invertebrates, and small mammals.
The blue gum eucalyptus grove next to Albany Beach provides marginal nesting habitat for raptors such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), although no such nests have been recorded to date, perhaps due to the high intensity of human recreation in the area. Urban-adapted songbirds such as northern mockingbird (Mimulus polyglottos), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) also may nest in the grove and other nearby ornamental trees.
Mammals. California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) were the only mammal species detected during LSA’s reconnaissance survey; these species primarily occur in the northern portion of the study area on the Albany Neck, where the abundant construction debris and riprap provides numerous crevices, recesses, and nooks that provide cover from predators. Common urban-adapted mammals such as northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) and opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) likely forage in the study area at night. The construction debris and riprap also provide habitat for Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), an introduced pest species that can have major impacts on native small mammals and ground-nesting birds. Feral cats also are known to occur at the Albany Bulb and Neck (LSA 2002a) and can adversely affect native bird populations. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) may occasionally venture into the shallow subtidal waters within the study area to forage on small fish. California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) have been observed in the offshore waters of Eastshore State Park, but their occurrence within the study area is sporadic because both are more typically associated with deeper marine waters in central San Francisco Bay and the outer coast. No haul-out sites for these species are present in the study area or within the larger Eastshore State Park (Goals Project 1999).
Marine Invertebrates. The study area includes several habitat types that support, or have the potential to support, invertebrate animals that live in or close to the Bay. Many of these invertebrates are prey species for wading birds, as well as other invertebrates. While a formal survey and identification of marine invertebrate species was not conducted for this project, the general status and distribution of marine invertebrates in San Francisco Bay are well documented.
The invertebrate organisms that inhabit sandy beaches and dunes are able to burrow rapidly and/or deeply into the sand to avoid displacement by passing waves, permanent burial by moving sediment, desiccation, or predation. Generally, the most numerically abundant taxa on sandy beaches along the coast and San Francisco Bay are crustaceans, especially sand crabs, amphipods (beach hoppers), and isopods (beach “lice”). Some of these motile animals as well as some sessile invertebrates may wash onto the beach with the kelp, eelgrass or debris they are attached to.
In intertidal and subtidal habitats, such as the riprapped and rocky shorelines and the muddy substrate at the bottom of the Bay, taxa that live in or burrow through the sand and/or mud substrate are likely to be present. These “infauna” include predatory polychaete and nemertian worms, predatory gastropod mollusks (e.g., snails), suspension-feeding bivalve mollusks (e.g., clams), and suspension- feeding worms (e.g., lugworms) (Kozloff 1993). Numerous invertebrate species are harbored among the blades and inflorescences of eelgrass, including amphipods, isopods, and copepods (Kitting and Wyllie-Echeverria 1992; Hanson 1998; Carr 2008), and numbers of individual intervebrates are high on San Francisco Bay eelgrass compared to other regions (Carr et al. in review).
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 80 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
The remains of pier pilings and other hard substrates (i.e., riprap and rocky shoreline) in the intertidal and subtidal zones of the study area provide habitat for sessile (i.e., attached) and motile marine invertebrates. Barnacles, oysters, mussels and anemones will commonly colonize such hard substrates in the Bay (Kozloff 1993). The only oyster species endemic to the west coast of North America, including San Francisco Bay, is known as the California or Olympia oyster (Ostreola conchaphila). This species grows on loose boulders and other hard substrates in the intertidal zone (Kozloff 1993) and is fairly common along the rocky shorelines in the study area (Katharyn Boyer, personal observation, March 2010).
San Francisco Bay is now host to hundreds of non-native marine invertebrate species, many of which are invasive and have been observed to negatively impact native invertebrate communities (Carlton 1979; Cohen 2005). Invasive non-native invertebrate species that may occur in the study area (based on the presence of suitable habitat) include the following (Cohen 2005): Eastern mud whelk (Ilyanassa obsoleta), channeled whelk (Busycotypus canliculatus), rough periwinkle (Littorina saxatilis), Atlantic oyster drill (Urosalpinx cinerea), ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa), green bagmussel (Musculista senhousia), Eastern soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria), overbite clam (Corbula amurensis), Japanese littleneck clam (Venerupis philippinarum), European green crab (Carcinus maenus), colonial bryozoa (Bugula neritina, Cryptosula pallasiana, Watersipora subtorquata), and sea squirts (Botrylloides violaceus, Botryllus schlosseri, Styela clava).
8.4.2 Special-status Animals Prior to conducting fieldwork, LSA searched the CNDDB for known occurrences of special-status animals within 5 miles of the study area using GIS software (Arc GIS 9.3.1). Other sources of information include the Habitat Issues chapters of the Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory (LSA 2002a and 2002b) and LSA biologists’ knowledge of biological resources along the Albany shoreline. For the purposes of this report, special-status animals are defined as follows:
• Animals listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. • Animals listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. • Animals listed by the CDFG as California Species of Special Concern. • Animals that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines. • Marine mammals protected under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972.
LSA wildlife biologists Eric Lichtwardt and Matt Ricketts conducted a reconnaissance-level biological survey of the study area on March 26, 2010. The survey consisted of walking the study area shoreline while recording observations of animal species and habitat features into field notes, and assessing the study area’s potential to support the special-status animal species identified while consulting the information sources cited above. Animal species detected during the survey are listed in Appendix G.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 81 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Based on the habitat types present within the study area and the information from sources described above, LSA identified 20 special-status animal species as potentially occurring in the study area vicinity. Table 8.1 summarizes the status, habitat requirements, and potential for occurrence of these species within the study area. Most of these species have at least some potential to occur in the study area on an occasional basis, but are not expected to regularly forage or nest there due to a lack of suitable habitat and/or existing disturbance levels associated with recreational use of the trails and beaches. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) has moderate potential to winter among the concrete riprap along the North Shore and future restoration activities or public access improvements in this area may affect this species, if present. As such, a brief account of this species is provided below.
Burrowing Owl. Burrowing owls have undergone substantial population declines throughout central and coastal California, primarily due to habitat loss (DeSante et al. 1997). This species occurs in open, well-drained grasslands with abundant small mammal burrows, particularly those of California ground squirrels. Burrowing owls also prefer areas with short vegetation so they can easily scan their surroundings and spot potential predators (Zarn 1974). In human-modified areas burrowing owls often use burrows under the edges of concrete, asphalt, rubble piles, and riprap (Barclay 2001; LSA obs.).
Although there are no records of burrowing owls nesting in the study area vicinity, this species has been observed wintering at Cesar Chavez Park in Berkeley for the last few years (LSA obs.). Other areas in the study area vicinity where wintering burrowing owls have been observed include the Albany Bulb (around piles of concrete), the North Basin Strip, the south shoreline of the North Basin (in riprap), and south of University Avenue (west of the Strawberry Creek outfall) (LSA 2002a). Although there are no records of burrowing owls within the study area itself, the concrete debris along the Albany Neck provides suitable crevices and cover that could potentially be used by the occasional migrating or wintering individual. As at Cesar Chavez Park, California ground squirrels occur in this area and have created or enlarged numerous burrows among the concrete debris and rocks, increasing habitat suitability for burrowing owls.
8.5 EXISTING WETLANDS AND OTHER IMPORTANT HABITATS 8.5.1 Wetlands and Other Waters A delineation of the extent of potential waters of the United States within the study area was conducted on March 26, 2010. The complete delineation report is provided in Appendix H. Potential waters of the U.S. consist of two seasonal wetlands and an unvegetated drainage, all located within a network of interdune swales west of the asphalt and gravel parking area behind Golden Gate Fields (Figures 20 and 21). Precipitation and runoff from the parking area collect in these swales for several hours to days during and after heavy storms. The runoff carries silt and sediment into the swales, creating a shallow lens of water-retaining soil on top of rapidly draining sand. These small wetland features serve a function in the improvement of water quality in the study area by filtering runoff before it joins the groundwater or drains into the Bay.
The larger vegetated wetland (1,090 square feet) supports predominantly non-native grasses and herbaceous weeds. The smaller vegetated wetland (240 square feet) supports predominantly native salt grass. The unvegetated drainage is part of a footpath to the beach from the Golden Gate Fields parking lot and may have been created entirely by foot traffic compacting the sand. The drainage is
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 82 For Detail See Figure 21
Buchanan Street Trailhead Parking
San Francisco Bay
Fleming Point
Other Features Potential Waters FIGURE 20
Study Area Seasonal Wetland (0.030 acres) Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Seasonal Drainage (0.001 acres) Feasibility Study
0 125 250 Tidal Waters (45.213 acres) FEET Potential Waters of the United States SOURCES: Parcels from Alameda County. Aerial from DigitalGlobe (April 1, 2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Feasibility Study\Figure20_PotentialWaters.mxd (6/28/2010) 31.5
31.5
31.5 30 28.5 27 25.5 24 22.5 19.5 21
19.5
16.5
18 16.5 15 13.5 21 19.5 13.5 13.5
12 15 19.5 16.5
12
10.5
9 9 L-65’ SP1 W-1’ SP2
9
10.5
240 1093 Sq. Ft. SP3 Sq. Ft.
SP4 SP5 7.5 9
10.5
10.5 12
6
4.5
3
1.5
Other Features Potential Waters FIGURE 21
Jurisdictional Sample Point Seasonal Drainage (0.001 acres) Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Non-jurisdictional Sample Point Seasonal Wetland (0.030 acres) Feasibility Study
02550 Study Area Tidal Waters Potential Waters of the United States FEET - Detail SOURCES: Parcels from Alameda County. Aerial from DigitalGlobe (April 1, 2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Feasibility Study\Figure21_Delineation.mxd (6/28/2010) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
lower in elevation than the adjacent parking lot; therefore, water drains into this feature when the parking lot is flooded. The drainage is 65 feet long and one foot wide on average; the entire footpath is more than twice this length. Only the segment of footpath that exhibits an OWHM (in the form of water mark and sediment/debris deposits) is mapped as a potential water of the U.S.
8.5.2 Sandy Beaches and Dunes The sandy beaches in the study area are important habitats because of their limited distribution on the East Bay shoreline and potential use by roosting and foraging shorebirds (see Section 8.4 Existing Wildlife and Special-Status Animals). The small dune field east of the wave-swept sand at Albany Beach is also an uncommon feature on the East Bay shoreline and has the potential to provide high tide refugia for birds and other animals. The dunes at Albany Beach are mostly vegetated by non- native plants; however, they do support two indicator species associated with a sensitive natural community formerly classified as “Northern foredunes (Holland 1986).” This community typically is dominated by perennial grasses and low, often succulent, perennial herbs and subshrubs. The plants in this community are adapted to moving sands and salt-laden winds. Although typical northern foredunes vegetation with its characteristic native plant associations is absent from the study area, dune beach bur-sage and sea rocket, a non-native species, are abundant (see Dune Mat under Existing Vegetation and Habitat Types, above). Unvegetated dunes are known as active dunes and are barren, mobile sand accumulations whose size and shape are determined by abiotic site factors rather than by stabilizing vegetation (Holland 1986). If iceplant and other invasive non-native plants are eliminated from the dune field, a greater area of active dunes may develop at Albany Beach.
8.5.3 Rocky Shoreline Natural rocky shoreline, both intertidal and subtidal, is uncommon in San Francisco Bay. Only a few areas of bedrock rim the western part of the Central Bay and crop out at islands and a few shoreline locations (NOAA 2007), including Fleming Point in the study area. Artificial hard substrate is more common in the Bay than natural rock, and much of it occurs in the Central Bay, including the East Bay shoreline. Artificial hard substrate in the Albany Beach study area consists primarily of construction debris and concrete riprap on the Neck shoreline, and rock riprap along the shoreline south of Albany Beach that appears to be native rock placed as armoring. The native rock may have been supplied by the leveling of Fleming Point during construction of Golden Gate Fields. Natural and artificial hard substrates in the study area, including the pier pilings, provide substrate for algal attachment, invertebrate attachment and refugia, and foraging habitat for birds, fishes and invertebrates (NOAA 2007). The rocky shorelines in the study area support what appears to be a thriving intertidal community of algae and invertebrates. Evidence of vertebrate wildlife foraging (e.g., ground squirrels, lizards, bird droppings, raccoon scat) in the rocky intertidal zone was observed by several biologists during the 2010 field surveys. These areas of interface between the Bay and the beaches or developed areas are important habitat for many species at the Albany shoreline, including the native California oyster which is the target of regional and national shellfish restoration efforts on the west coast of the United States (Kimmerer 2009; Zabin et al. 2009; NOAA Restoration Portal).
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 85 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
8.5.4 Eelgrass Beds Eelgrass is well known for its role as a foundation species whose presence results in provision of significant habitat and food web support for many other species (Kenworthy et al. 2006). Eelgrass harbors a diversity of invertebrates, which in turn provide a food source for many birds and fish. Eelgrass beds in the Bay also probably provide shelter for out-migrating juveniles of several diadromous fish species. While eelgrass acreage has increased in San Francisco Bay in recent years, this species is known to be sensitive to changes in its environment. Increases in suspended sediment supply, decreases in sunlight penetration, and other changes in water quality may affect eelgrass survival and establishment. Protecting and expanding eelgrass beds in the study area should enhance food supply and habitat for numerous organisms at multiple trophic levels (Boyer and Wyllie- Echeverria 2009).
8.6 FUTURE CONDITIONS In concert with the physical processes that created Albany Beach, biological resources will be a major factor in determining the feasibility of potential restoration and public access improvements. The Albany Lands (i.e., the beach and surrounding areas) are designated by the Eastshore State Park General Plan for conservation and restoration. The General Plan defines conservation areas as those areas whose natural habitat values will be protected and enhanced while accommodating lower intensity recreation that is compatible with and dependent on those values. Striking a balance between conservation, restoration and public access is a key objective for future improvements in this area. Environmental enhancements identified by the General Plan include activities such as wetlands enhancement, uplands revegetation, removal of exotic species, and debris removal.
Because the modern day configuration of the Albany shoreline is artificial, the terms “habitat restoration” and “native” must be qualified as they apply to this site. For example, dunes did not occur at this location before the Bay was filled; therefore, removing non-native vegetation will not “restore” the dunes to some previously natural state. Rather, removing non-native vegetation and re- vegetating the dunes with California native dune species will attempt to create or mimic native habitats that are known to occur elsewhere on or near the Bay shoreline.
The study area provides many opportunities for enhancing or restoring the existing biological resources. Several habitat restoration or enhancement concepts are suggested below. This report does not include an analysis of potential constraints on these restoration concepts posed by other limiting factors, such as public safety, sea level rise, or financial limitations. These details are examined in the Opportunities and Constraints Analysis of the Feasibility Study.
8.6.1 Albany Beach Upland Vegetation. The overall quality of habitat for plants and animals on and around the main beach could be improved by removing non-native trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants and revegetating the area with native coastal scrub and grassland (native and naturalized species).
Dunes. If space and sand supply are available, the dune field could be expanded. Conditions on the existing dunes can be enhanced. Enhancement would likely include removal of non-native vegetation and partial revegetation with native California dune vegetation. Revegetated and unvegetated dunes
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 86 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
could be protected by fencing to exclude dogs and people. Previous dune restoration projects implemented elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay Region can provide useful guidance on planting palettes and successful restoration methodologies.
Wetlands and Water Quality. If the dunefield behind Albany Beach can be expanded, the existing interdune wetlands could be expanded and enhanced to improve storm water drainage and water quality. Enhancement would likely include removal of non-native plants and revegetation with native wetland species, particularly salt grass.
Beach. The high intensity of recreational use of the sand beach by people and dogs (during daylight hours) likely precludes significant enhancement for wildlife habitat. Nonetheless, the sand beach could be enhanced by removing weeds and debris, particularly creosote-treated wood and other potentially hazardous materials.
Eelgrass Beds. The degree to which eelgrass beds will expand naturally in coming years is difficult to predict. Expansion of eelgrass between 2003 and 2009 according to sidescan sonar surveys suggest an upward trend in eelgrass coverage both in the study area and baywide (Merkel and Associates 2004 and 2009 in review). Declines in suspended sediment concentrations measured in the last decade indicate improving water clarity in San Francisco Bay (Schoellhamer 2009), suggesting that conditions are becoming more favorable for eelgrass. However, it is possible that the recent expansion during several years of mild winters will be followed by contraction following winters with greater rainfall and turbidity, and repeated surveys will be needed to assess resultant trends.
Restoration measures could proactively advance population expansion in San Francisco Bay and take advantage of overall improvements in water quality conditions. Recent experimental work in small areas (0.5 acre or less) has led to guarded optimism as to the potential for restoration success at a larger scale (e.g., Boyer et al. 2008). As conditions in the study area appear suitable for eelgrass, additional seeding or transplanting on the scale of test plots or pilot scale studies could proceed, following the phased approach recommended by the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Goals Project (draft report on eelgrass constraints and opportunities soon to undergo public comment period as an appendix to the overall goals report, Boyer and Wyllie-Echeverria 2010).
8.6.2 South Shoreline of Albany Neck Upland Vegetation. The mostly ruderal vegetation within the study area on the south shoreline of the Neck could be enhanced by removing non-native vegetation and hazardous debris, adding clean topsoil, and revegetating the area with native coastal scrub and naturalized grassland. Native coastal scrub mixed with grassland would provide higher quality habitat for many songbirds and terrestrial animals, such as ground squirrels and lizards.
Rocky Shoreline. See Section 8.6.4 Living Shorelines for a discussion of rocky shoreline enhancement along the Neck.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 87 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
8.6.3 Fleming Point Upland Vegetation. The remnant native coastal scrub (i.e., poison oak scrub) that is present on the upper slopes of Fleming Point can be enhanced by removal of the non-native plants that surround it, followed by revegetation with native coastal plant species including scrub, succulents, and grasses. The same type of revegetation would benefit the low-lying strip of ruderal vegetation that separates the parking lot from small sand beaches just north of Fleming Point. A few salt marsh fringe plant species, such as gumplant, alkali heath and pickleweed, could be included in these low-lying areas.
Rocky Shoreline. The upland base of the old Fleming Point pier could be graded down to an elevation at or below the high tide line to expand the area of rocky intertidal habitat at this location. Sea lyme grass (Leymus mollis) and salt marsh fringe plant species, such as gumplant, alkali heath and pickleweed, could be planted where soil remains after grading. See Section 8.6.4 Living Shorelines for additional concepts on rocky shoreline enhancement north of Fleming Point.
8.6.4 Living Shorelines The artificial rocky shorelines (i.e., riprap, debris and placed rock) in the study area were placed as armoring to stabilize the bay fill and prevent erosion at the water’s edge. In recent years, alternatives to hard structural armoring have been developed that use a more natural “living shorelines” approach to erosion protection. Living shorelines utilize a suite of bank stabilization and habitat restoration techniques to reinforce the shoreline, minimize erosion, and maintain coastal processes while protecting, enhancing and creating habitat for biological resources (NOAA Restoration Portal; Kimmerer 2009). The Albany shoreline may be appropriate for a living shoreline approach that incorporates both native oyster reef habitat structure and eelgrass plantings, which could maximize food resources available at higher trophic levels, while possibly helping to reduce flow velocities and erosion of adjacent shorelines. Sites are currently being identified to enact this concept on a pilot scale through a State Coastal Conservancy project, and preliminary discussions of the possible inclusion of the Albany Beach subtidal areas with East Bay Regional Park District are underway (Latta, personal communication).
The Neck shoreline is actively eroding and is a likely candidate for such an approach. The Fleming Point Pier also may be a suitable candidate for creating subtidal and intertidal reef structures that, in addition to protecting the shoreline and improving subtidal habitat, would enhance roosting opportunities for birds. Placed strategically to be visible above water during a high tide, a reef structure at this location could also enhance public safety by keeping kayakers or other watercraft users away from submerged pier pilings.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 88 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
9.0 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
9.1 INTRODUCTION This section describes the baseline conditions for cultural resources in the study area. The term “cultural resources” in this analysis also includes paleontological resources (fossils). The section begins with a description of the methods used to identify the baseline conditions. The baseline conditions are then described, and consist of the regulatory context for historic and cultural resources; an overview of the cultural and paleontological setting of the study area; and an inventory of known cultural resources within and adjacent to the study area. The cultural resource information in this section constitutes the baseline conditions against which project constraints and opportunities may be assessed; it does not constitute a formal cultural resources survey or inventory, which was not within the scope of this report.
9.2 METHODS This section describes the methods used to identify the baseline conditions for cultural resources within and adjacent to the study area. The baseline condition information was obtained from existing resource documentation, background research, and contact with potentially interested parties, as described below. In additional, a site visit was conducted on March 4, 2010, by LSA archeologist, E. Timothy Jones.
9.2.1 Records Searches Records searches were done for the study area at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, and at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento. The NWIC is an affiliate of the State Office of Historic Preservation and is the official state repository for cultural resources reports and records for Alameda County. The NAHC manages the Sacred Land File, a database that indicates culturally significant lands recognized by Native American groups.
As part of the records search, LSA reviewed the following State of California and local inventories for baseline condition information:
• California Inventory of Historic Resources (CDPR 1976). • Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (California Office of Historic Preservation 1988). • Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Alameda County (Office of Historic Preservation, October 23, 2009). The Directory of Properties includes the listings of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 89 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
• Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory: Recreation, Scenic, and Cultural Resources (LSA 2002b).
9.2.2 Contact with Potentially Interested Parties Contact with potentially interested parties was initiated with organizations and individuals that may have information or concerns regarding cultural resources in the study area. LSA sent letters describing the project and maps depicting the study area on April 29, 2010, to local Native American representatives and organizations identified by the NAHC, and on April 23, 2010, to the Albany Historical Society.
9.2.3 Field Survey A surface reconnaissance survey done for the Eastshore Park Project General Plan EIR (CDPR et al. 2002c; LSA 2002b) included the current study area. That surface reconnaissance survey consisted of a cursory pedestrian review of known filled areas, with a more intensive survey, in 10-meter wide zig-zag transects, conducted within areas that had not been filled (i.e., Fleming Point).
9.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT 9.3.1 Applicable Federal Laws and Regulations National Historic Preservation Act. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470) was enacted by Congress in 1966 to establish national policy for historic preservation in the United States. The NHPA created the State Office of Historic Preservation and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) whose roles include reviewing and commenting on actions undertaken, licensed, or funded by the federal government that may have an effect on properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register).
The NHPA establishes the role and responsibilities of the federal government in historic preservation. Toward this end, the NHPA directs agencies (1) to identify and manage historic properties under their control; (2) to undertake actions that will advance the Act’s provisions, and avoid actions contrary to its purposes; (3) to consult with others while carrying out historic preservation activities; and (4) to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties.3
Section 106. If a project is subject to federal jurisdiction and the project is an undertaking as defined by 36 CFR §800.16(y) with the potential to cause effects on historic properties (36CFR §800.3(a)), Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, must be addressed to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (see below for discussion of the National Register of Historic Places).
EBRPD will need to comply with Section 106 if it receives federal funding or initiates a project that requires a permit (e.g., a Clean Water Act section 404 permit), license, or approval from a federal
3 Adapted from King (2004)
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 90 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
agency. Projects proposed in the study area requiring soil excavation or fill, including placement of fill to create pocket beaches near Fleming Point, will likely be subject to Section 106.
National Register of Historic Places. The National Register was authorized under Section 101 of the NHPA as the Nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Properties listed in the National Register consist of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. Properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register, called “historic properties,” are considered in planning and environmental review, and effects to such properties are addressed under Section 106.
The criteria for determining a resource’s significance for National Register listing are defined at 36 CFR §60.4 and are as follows:
. . .the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In order to be eligible for the National Register, a cultural resource must retain historical integrity, which is the ability of a resource to convey its significance. The evaluation of integrity must be grounded in an understanding of a resource’s physical features and its environment, and how these relate to its significance. “To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects” (National Park Service 1997). There are seven aspects of integrity to consider when evaluating a cultural resource: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Resources that are at least 50 years old, are associated with an important historic context, and possess integrity will generally be considered eligible for listing in the National Register.
9.3.2 Applicable State Laws and Regulations California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state's public agencies (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14(3) §15002(i)). Under the provisions of CEQA, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(b)).
CEQA §15064.5(a) defines a “historical resource” as a resource which meets one or more of the following criteria:
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 91 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register • Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at PRC §5020.1(k)) • Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of §5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code • Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California… Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources” (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(a)(3); see below for discussion of the California Register of Historical Resources).
CEQA requires that historical resources and unique archaeological resources be taken into consideration during the CEQA planning process (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5; PRC §21083.2). If feasible, adverse effects to the significance of historical resources must be avoided, or the effects mitigated (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(b)(4)). The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources.
If the cultural resource in question is an archaeological site, CEQA (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(c)(1)) requires that the lead agency first determine if the site is a historical resource as defined in CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(a). If the site qualifies as a historical resource, potential adverse impacts must be considered in the same manner as a historical resource (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001a). If the archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but does qualify as a unique archaeological site, then the archaeological site is treated in accordance with PRC §21083.2 (CCR Title 14(3) §15069.5(c)(3)). In practice, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the definition of a historical resource (Bass et al. 1999). CEQA defines a “unique archaeological resource” as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria:
C Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information C Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type C Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC §21083.2(g))
If an impact to a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) §15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 92 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
The proposed projects implement the Eastshore Park Project General Plan and would, therefore, be subject to the mitigation measures identified in the EIR prepared for the General Plan (CDPR et al. 2002c).
California Register of Historical Resources. California Public Resources Code §5024.1 established the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The California Register is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The California Register helps government agencies identify and evaluate California’s historical resources, and indicates which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC §5024.1(a)). Any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register is to be considered during the CEQA process. The requirements for listing in the California Register are similar to those established for the National Register.
9.3.3 Public Resources Code §5097.5 California Public Resources Code §5097.5 would apply to future projects proposed in the study area involving soil excavation. This section of the Public Resources Code prohibits excavation or removal of any “vertebrate paleontological site… or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.” Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor.
9.3.4 Relevant Plan Policies Guidelines, goals and policies relevant to historic and cultural resources in the study area are summarized below. A complete list of the guidelines, goals and policies relevant to this section is provided on page 17 of Table A-1 (Appendix A).
Eastshore State Park General Plan. The Park General Plan includes one goal and three guidelines relevant to historic and cultural resources in the study area. Most of the guidelines are general and support the goal of appropriate protection, preservation, and interpretation of significant cultural resources identified within the park. These guidelines ensure that (1) cultural resources will be identified by a qualified cultural resources professional prior to project implementation (CULT-1), and (2) impacts to such resources will be avoided or minimized (CULT-2 and CULT-3). Consistent with these guidelines, public access and habitat improvements at Albany Beach would be subject to the mitigation measures outlined in the Eastshore State Park Project General Plan EIR (CDPR et al. 2002c), which reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. These measures will be incorporated into future projects at Albany Beach and further evaluated during the CEQA review process before project approval.
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Master Plan includes two guidelines that generally apply to documentation and preservation of historic and cultural resources.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 93 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
City of Albany General Plan. The City has one goal (CROS-4) in its General Plan that addresses cultural resources. Goal 4 of the Conservation, Recreation, and Open Space Element seeks to “Strive to maintain and improve the quality of Albany’s natural environment and cultural resources, and natural resources in general.” While Eastshore State Park lands are not subject to City municipal codes and policies, the Eastshore State Park General Plan addresses these same concerns in its goals and guidelines.
9.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING The paleontological setting describes the geology and paleontological sensitivity of the study area. The cultural resources setting characterizes the land use history of the study area and spans the time from Native American habitation of the East Bay shoreline through occupation and use during the historic period to the present.
9.4.1 Paleontological Setting The study area consists primarily of artificial fill and bay mud. Artificial fill, consisting of various construction and demolition debris, was deposited on tidal mudflats and open water in the study area beginning in 1963 to create the Albany Bulb and Plateau (Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002). Neither the artificial fill nor bay mud, which are up to 40 and 65 feet thick, respectively (Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002), are known to contain significant paleontological resources.
Franciscan Formation sediments of shale and sandstone comprise Fleming Point and underlie the artificial fill and bay mud at considerable depth. Jurassic-Cretaceous period (206 to 65 million years ago) Franciscan sediments contain marine invertebrates such as ammonites and extinct relatives of modern cephelapods such as squid (Armstrong and Gallagher 1977; Hertlein 1951 and 1956; Page 1966; Schlocker et al. 1954). Although rare, vertebrate fossils have been recorded in Franciscan Group and similarly aged sediments in California.
9.4.2 Cultural Prehistory and Ethnography Human occupation of the Bay Area began between about 7,000 and 4,000 years ago as Holocene glacial melt flooded the coastal valley of what is now San Francisco Bay (Moratto 1984). Native groups settled around the bayshore at places close to marsh resources with sources of fresh water, such as at the mouths of perennial creeks. These native groups left remnants of their occupation along the East Bay shoreline, the most notable of which are “shellmounds,” extensive archaeological deposits containing a rich, diverse assemblage of dietary remains, artifacts, and human remains.
The descendants of these native groups who inhabited the Albany area are known as Ohlone, although they are often referred to by the name of their linguistic group, Costanoan. The project site is within the former ethnographic territory of the Huichiun tribelet of Ohlone, who occupied a large area along the East Bay shore. The Huichiun spoke Chochenyo, one of eight Ohlone languages. Ohlone culture was rapidly transformed when European settlers moved into northern California. These settlers set up the mission system and exposed the Ohlone to diseases to which they had no immunity. After the secularization of the missions in 1834, native people in the Bay Area moved to ranchos, where they worked as manual laborers (Levy 1978).
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 94 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
9.4.3 History Spanish settlement in the Bay Area focused around missions and presidios at Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Juan Bautista, San Jose, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Rafael, and San Francisco Solano. No missions were established in the East Bay, despite its agricultural fertility and native population. The Spanish referred to the East Bay as Contra Costa – the “opposite” or “other” coast – and saw it as something of a backwater.
Given the generally negative Spanish impression of the East Bay, it is unsurprising that Luis Peralta, 1820 grantee of a 50,000 acre tract encompassing the modern cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Albany, Emeryville, Piedmont, and parts of San Leandro, was disappointed with his grant. Peralta, a retired sergeant with 40 years in the service of the Spanish crown, had hoped for lands closer to San Jose, his final post.
In the wake of the gold rush, squatters moved into the rich farmland on the flats of the Peraltas’ Rancho San Antonio, in what is today western Berkeley and Albany. Industry developed along the bay shoreline throughout the second half of the nineteenth century in response to the construction of shipping facilities and the readily available East Bay land. Difficult as it is to believe today, when a bay view dramatically increases the price of real estate throughout the Bay Area, at the beginning of the twentieth century the bayshore was seen as a good place to put “undesirable” industries and activities. Fleming Point became the location first of an explosives company, then of the San Francisco Chemical Company, which manufactured various acids for industrial and laboratory use (Albany Police and Fire Employees Civil Service Club 1947; Sanborn Map Company 1911). Fleming Point was far enough away from the houses of Albany and Berkeley to assuage local residents’ fear that fires and explosions at the factories would damage their homes.
The city of Berkeley, in turn, used its shoreline for municipal waste disposal. According to historian George A. Pettitt, in 1908, the city built a $60,000 waste incinerator at Fleming Point; a year later, its use was discontinued because it was costing $21,000 per year to operate. After a brief experiment in which a steamship company was hired to dump waste in the bay, Berkeley entered a partnership with Emeryville and re-opened the incinerator. By 1923, Berkeley residents had their fill of the smell and the cost of operating the incinerator and approved a plan to bury their garbage in a “fill and cover” landfill (Pettitt 1973). The practice of using the shoreline for waste and fill disposal would continue into the 1980s and created much of the current Albany shoreline.
Even as it was used for waste disposal, the northern East Bay shoreline remained highly visible to a large group of local residents: East Bay ferry commuters. Before the completion of the Bay Bridge in 1936, East Bay residents relied on a network of trains, streetcars, and ferries to get them to San Francisco’s jobs and shopping. Piers were built over the mud flats of the bayshore to deeper water. The remains of one such pier, a water taxi dock that once linked travelers between San Francisco and the Golden Gate Fields race track, are visible within the study area at Fleming Point.
The waterfront remained an industrial area through much of the twentieth century, but recent years have seen a gradual decline in manufacturing businesses. Industry is slowly being replaced by retail operations: the Costco on Point Isabel, Berkeley’s Fourth Street development, and Emeryville’s shopping centers.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 95 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
9.5 RESOURCE INVENTORY This section discusses paleontological resources (e.g., fossils), archaeological cultural resources (e.g., Native American shellmounds), and built environment cultural resources (e.g., historical piers and art works) previously identified in the study area. No cultural resources are recorded immediately adjacent to the study area.
9.5.1 Paleontological Resources The study area consists primarily of artificial fill deposited c. 1963-1980s and Holocene (10,000 years to present) bay mud. These deposits are not of sufficient age to contain fossils. Jurassic-Cretaceous Franciscan Formation deposits, which have the potential for containing invertebrate and vertebrate fossils, are exposed at Fleming Point. Fossiliferous Franciscan Formation deposits also underlie the artificial fill and bay mud but are at considerable depth and are unlikely to be affected by restoration or public access projects.
9.5.2 Archaeological Cultural Resources No prehistoric or historical archaeological sites are recorded in the study area. Although prehistoric archaeological sites are recorded in the vicinity of the study area, these are located mostly east of I-80, near the pre-1850 shoreline, and are well outside areas where restoration and public access might occur.
The California States Lands Commission Shipwreck inventory indicates that the 19-ton wood scow sloop Norman was driven ashore at Fleming Point in 1879 (Allan 2006). As noted by Allan (2006), “Although the exact location of this wreck is unknown, there is a possibility that the ship or portions of the ship are located under the fill.”
A review of historical maps indicate industrial and transportation related buildings and structures at Fleming Point (Sanborn Map Company 1911; USGS 1899), including piers/docks and a warehouse associated with the San Francisco Chemical Company manufacturing facility. Although, with the exception of the Fleming Point Pier remains (see below), no known industrial or transportation related structures or buildings remain in the study area, based on a review of historical maps there is a potential that intact historical resources or historic properties, as defined under CEQA and 36 CFR Part 800, are below the existing ground surface at the southern end of the study area.
9.5.3 Built Environment Cultural Resources Fleming Point Pier. The remains of the Fleming Point Pier were recorded in 2001 (Gillies and Kelley 2001) and assigned the primary record number P-01-010617 by the NWIC. The resource consists of the remains of a wood and concrete L-shaped pier. Based on a historical photograph published in the San Francisco Call Bulletin, the pier was constructed c. 1947, at around the same time as the adjacent Golden Gate Fields race track, and served as a docking station for a water taxi service (LSA 2002b; San Francisco News-Call Archives 1947). The pier, in isolation, appears to lack the historical associations with notable events or people, the fine engineering and design qualities, and the data potential necessary to meet the criteria of either the National or California registers.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 96 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
However, as noted in the Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory: Recreation, Scenic, and Cultural Resources (LSA 2002b) and the Eastshore Park Project General Plan EIR (CDPR 2002c), the Fleming Point Pier may constitute an important historical element of the Golden Gate Fields race track complex. Further study will be required to determine if the Fleming Point Pier constitutes a “historical resource” or “historic property,” (as defined under CEQA and the NHPA, respectively) as a contributor to a possible historical district associated with the Golden Gate Fields race track.
9.5.4 Contact with Potentially Interested Parties Debbie Pilas-Treadway, NAHC Environmental Specialist, responded in a letter on April 27, 2010, that a review of the Sacred Lands File did not indicate any “Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area.” Ms. Sanchez also provided LSA with a list of local Native American representatives that may have knowledge or concerns regarding cultural resources in the study area. LSA contacted these individuals via letter on April 29, 2010. No responses to these letters have been received to date.
LSA contacted the Albany Historical Society (Society) on April 23, 2010, via letter to determine if the Society had information or concerns regarding cultural resources in the study area. No response has been received from the Society to date.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 97 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
10.0 AESTHETICS
10.1 INTRODUCTION The Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory (WRT 2001) and General Plan EIR (CDPR et al. 2002c) addressed aesthetics by focusing on visual resources within and in the vicinity of Eastshore State Park. The most prominent visual resources in the Albany Beach study area are 1) panoramic views of the Bay and 2) public art. Due to a number of factors, such as the location, configuration and history of the Albany Beach area, the existing visual resources are associated more with views from and through the study area. As much of the upland area was created by landfill, there are limited visual resources of significance (e.g., topographic changes, geologic formations, or stands of mature native trees) present within the study area itself.
10.1.1 Relevant Plan Policies Guidelines, goals and policies relevant to safety considerations in the study area are summarized below. A complete list of the guidelines, goals and policies relevant to this section is provided on pages 17-18 of Table A-1 (Appendix A).
Eastshore State Park General Plan. The Park General Plan includes park-wide and site-specific guidelines and goals addressing aesthetics. Guidelines relevant to the Albany Beach project address signage/identity, landscape character, lighting, public art and viewshed protection.
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Master Plan does not directly address aesthetics; however, it does emphasize that facilities such as parking that do not depend on water will be located in areas that are screened from view, when practical.
City of Albany General Plan. The City General Plan includes one goal that addresses aesthetics in general terms. It calls for protection and enhancement of positive elements of Albany’s physical character, common architectural styles, significant views, and remaining natural features.
10.2 EXISTING AND FUTURE VISUAL RESOURCES 10.2.1 Views Albany Beach is identified in the General Plan as one of several areas within Eastshore State Park that provide the highest quality views and panoramas. The Albany Beach shoreline offers visitors panoramic views of the San Francisco Bay, including an array of distinctive landmarks such as the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco city skyline. The southern shore of the Albany Neck offers views of the Bay facing north, as well as views of the City of Albany’s urban landscape. Because there are no utilities at Albany Beach, the views from this vantage point are remarkably unobscured by utility poles and lines. Proposed improvements to habitat and public access at Albany Beach should be designed to protect or improve these views.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 98 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Dumping and debris are identified in the General Plan as features or conditions that detract from the visual quality of Eastshore State Park, particularly at Albany Beach. Some of the construction debris used to stabilize the southern shoreline of the Albany Neck is obscured from view by vegetation; however, much of it remains visible. In addition to landfill debris, debris that washes up on the beach from the Bay, dog waste, and garbage that is left by visitors to the area detract from the visual quality of the study area. Proposed improvements to habitat and public access at Albany Beach are likely to have a positive impact on these negative visual features.
10.2.2 Public Art The northern East Bay waterfront is known for its public art and “plop art” traditions. Two commissioned public art pieces are located in the study area (see Section 3.3 Structures and Facilities): “Herons” and “The Cove.” Plop art involves local residents depositing art created from mostly found objects around the Berkeley Marina, Albany Bulb and Plateau, and on the Berkeley and Emeryville mud flats. The Albany Beach study area includes only a few examples of such art, as identified by previous surveys of the waterfront (LSA 2002b) and a site visit conducted by LSA on March 4, 2010. Both commissioned and uncommisssioned artwork will be considered in the opportunities and constraints analysis phase of the Feasibility Study.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 99 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
11.0 PARK MAINTENANCE
11.1 INTRODUCTION On-going maintenance will play a large role in the long-term success of improvements to habitat and public access at Albany Beach. Currently, maintenance of public lands in the study area is carried out by the City of Albany on City-owned land, and by the District on land co-owned by the State of California and the District. This section summarizes existing maintenance operations on publicly owned lands in the study area and potential changes that may be required to maintain future park improvements. The fundamental goals of any maintenance activities should be to keep the park safe, functional and attractive for visitors. These goals have been built into the Eastshore State Park General Plan.
11.1.1 Relevant Plan Policies Guidelines, goals and policies relevant to maintenance requirements in the study area are summarized below. A complete list of the guidelines, goals and policies relevant to this section is provided on pages 18-19 of Table A-1 (Appendix A).
Eastshore State Park General Plan. The Park General Plan includes four guidelines that relate maintenance activities to preserving and managing native and non-native vegetation in the study area. The Plan includes one guideline that relates maintenance activities (e.g., trails, fencing and signs) to wildlife protection and habitat enhancement. The Plan includes a park operations guideline that calls for development of a maintenance plan to guide maintenance and operations procedures and practices for the park.
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Master Plan includes one guideline that generally applies to provision and maintenance of typical park facilities, such as parking/staging areas, restrooms, and signage.
City of Albany General Plan. The City General Plan includes one general goal, that is to strive to maintain and improve the quality of Albany’s natural environment and cultural resources. The Plan includes one guideline that calls for development of a comprehensive water conservation policy for City facilities, including requirements for drought-resistant landscaping and water-conserving fixtures. While improvements to Eastshore State Park lands are not subject to City plans and policies, the Eastshore State Park General Plan addresses these concerns.
11.2 EXISTING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Funded maintenance activities on public lands in the study area currently include:
• Daily cleaning and re-stocking of one portable toilet at the Buchanan Street parking lot; twice weekly pump out of toilet (responsibility of District)
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 100 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
• Daily service of trash receptacles along trails (responsibility depends on property ownership) • Daily check for vandalism and removal of graffiti if needed (responsibility depends on property ownership) • Seasonal mowing of upland areas (responsibility of District and City, depending on property ownership) • As-needed maintenance of bollards (City), fences and gates (responsibility depends on property ownership) • As-needed repair and replacement of signage (responsibility depends on property ownership) and benches (City) • As-needed maintenance of dirt trails (responsibility depends on property ownership) • Weekly trash pickup on beach and trails (responsibility of District) • As-needed tree maintenance (responsibility of District on the beach and Plateau; responsibility of City on Bulb and Buchanan Street)
11.3 FUTURE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS Existing maintenance activities and funding may need to be augmented to include additional activities for maintaining site improvements envisioned in the General Plan (see Section 3.0 Infrastructure, Section 4.0 Traffic and Circulation and Section 8.0 Biological Resources for descriptions of potential site improvements). The District would be responsible for maintenance activities on property co- owned by the State and the District and/or on legal easements through adjacent private property. Potential additional responsibilities of the District may include, but are not limited to:
• Maintenance of new fencing around dunes and revegetated areas • Expanded weed control and mowing in revegetated areas • Maintenance of irrigation in revegetated areas • Maintenance of new trails (i.e., Bay Trail segment between Golden Gate Fields and Buchanan Street parking) • Maintenance and replacement of new signage • Servicing additional trash receptacles • Servicing new toilet at the beach • Re-painting of parking spaces in new parking area(s)
The City of Albany anticipates installing a portable toilet at the Albany Bulb (Cunningham, personal communication) and additional landscape plantings around The Cove (Chaney, personal communication). Maintenance of new facilities at the Bulb or landscaping at The Cove would be the City’s responsibility under current property ownership.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 101 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
12.0 REFERENCES
3E Engineering. 1989. Request for Proposals, Environmental Testing Program, North Waterfront Park at the City of Berkeley Landfill. December 1989.
Albany Police and Fire Employees Civil Service Club. 1947. The Story of the City of Albany, California. Albany Police and Fire Employees Civil Service Club, Albany, California.
Allan, J.M. 2006. Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Golden Gate Fields Project in the City of Albany, Alameda County, California. William Self Associates, Inc., Orinda, California.
American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
American Ornithologists’ Union. 2009. Fiftieth supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 126:705-126.
Armstrong, C.F., and K. Gallagher. 1977. Fossils from the Franciscan Assemblage Alcatraz Island. California Geology 30(6):134-135.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2005. The San Francisco Bay Trail Project Gap Analysis Study. Prepared by Alta Planning + Design, Inc., Questa Engineering, Inc., and GreenInfo Network, August 2005.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 1989. San Francisco Bay Trail Plan. http://www.baytrail.org/baytrailplan.html
Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffmann, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2003. Occas. Papers Mus., Texas Tech Univ., 229.
Barclay, J. 2001. Burrowing owl species summary. Appendix IV in Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park Final Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Management Plan. Albion Environmental, Inc., Santa Cruz, California. March 2001.
Bass, R.E., A.I. Herson, and K.M. Bogdan. 1999. CEQA Deskbook: A Step-by-Step Guide on how to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, California.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. Hourly Wind Data, available online: http://hank.baaqmd.gov/tec/data/#, accessed March 2010.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 102 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Baye, P.R. 2006. California sea-blite (Suaeda californica) Reintroduction Plan, San Francisco Bay, California. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
Beidelman, L.H., and E.N. Kozloff. 2003. Plants of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Boyer, K.E. and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 2010. Eelgrass conservation and restoration in San Francisco Bay: Opportunities and constraints. Report for the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project. 76 pp. + appendices.
Boyer, K.E. and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 2009. Eelgrass Recommendations Report and Restoration Goals. Draft report for the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project, December 14, 2009.
Boyer, K.E., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, S. Cohen, and B. Ort. 2008. Evaluating buoy-deployed seeding for restoration of eelgrass in San Francisco Bay. Final report submitted to the NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET). http://rfp.ciceet.unh.edu/projects/search.php
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Commercial Version, March 2010. California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. Special Animals (883 taxa). July 2009. California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, California.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), East Bay Regional Park District, and California State Coastal Conservancy. 2002a. Eastshore State Park General Plan. Prepared by Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC; LSA Associates, Inc.; Subsurface Consultants, Inc.; and Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. Adopted December 6, 2002.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), East Bay Regional Park District, and California State Coastal Conservancy. 2002b. Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared by Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC; LSA Associates, Inc.; Subsurface Consultants, Inc.; and Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., April 2001, revised September 2001-February 2002.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), East Bay Regional Park District, and California State Coastal Conservancy. 2002c. Eastshore Park Project General Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2002022051. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc.; Subsurface Consultants, Inc.; and Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., July 2002.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR). 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 103 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2010. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v7-10b) California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. (http://www.cnps.org/inventory)
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 7th ed. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California.
California Office of Historic Preservation. 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Sites Survey for California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). 1998. Order 98-072, Adoption of Site Cleanup Requirements for: Catellus Development Corporation and SF Pacific Property, Inc., Proposed Eastshore Park Property Berkeley and Albany (Alameda County) and Richmond (Contra Costa County).
California State Coastal Conservancy (CSCC). 2003. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program. September 2003. http://www.spartina.org
California Water Boards fact sheet, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards – Working together to protect California’s water resources, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/publications_forms/publications/factsheets/docs/boardovervie w. pdf, accessed May 4, 2010.
Carlisle, H. and K.M. Rollins. 1994. Ground Response Studies at the Alameda Naval Air Station. The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989 – Strong Ground Motion, USGS Professional Paper 1551-A, Editor, Borcherdt, R.D., U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., p. A122-A143.
Carlton, J.T. 1979. Introduced Invertebrates of San Francisco Bay in San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary – Investigations into the Natural History of San Francisco Bay and Delta with reference to the influence of man. Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and California Academy of Sciences. San Francisco, California.
Carr, L.A., K.E. Boyer and A.J. Brooks. In review. Patterns in epifaunal community structure in San Francisco Bay eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds.
Carr. L.A. 2008. Epifaunal community structure and trophic interactions in San Francisco Bay eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitats. Masters thesis, San Francisco State University.
Cayan, D., M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, H. Hidalgo, T. Das, E. Maurer, P. Bromirski, N. Graham, and R. Flick. 2008. Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. A report from the California Climate Change Center, sponsored by the California Energy Commission and the California Environmental Protection Agency.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 104 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
City of Albany website, http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=804, accessed May 4, 2010.
City of Berkeley website, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=48056, accessed May 13, 2010.
Cohen, A.N. 2005. Guide to the Exotic Species of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, California, www.exoticsguide.org.
Consortium of California Herbaria (Consortium). 2010. Database provided online by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria (ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium).
Crother, B.I. (ed.). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) Herpetological Circular 37.
DeSante, D.F., E D. Ruhlen, S.L. Adamany, K.M. Burton, and S. Amin. 1997. A census of burrowing owls in central California in 1991. Pages 38–48 in J. L. Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, Its Biology, and Management, Including the Proceedings of the First International Burrowing Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report 9.
East Bay Regional Park District website, http://www.ebparks.org/parks/eastshore, accessed March 25, 2010.
East Bay Regional Park District. 2008. Golden Gate Fields Interim Bay Trail. Engineered plans prepared by Questa Engineering Corp, January 8, 2008. Sheets 1-6.
East Bay Regional Park District. 2009. Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study – Request for Proposals. October 30, 2009.
Ebert, D.A. 2003. Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.
Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI). 2003. Addendum to the Eastshore State Park Remediation and Risk Management Plan Berkeley North Basin Strip-II, Berkeley, California. December 3.
ERM and Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI). 1998. Remediation and Risk Management Plan, East Shore Properties, Berkeley/Albany/Richmond, California. May 18.
Evens, J. 2005. Introduction to California Birdlife. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Revised, January, 2005. Final Draft Guidelines for Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis and Mapping for the Pacific Coast of the United States, Draft Guidelines, FEMA Regions IX, X, and FEMA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/frm_cfham.shtm
Fern Tiger Associates (FTA). 2010. Voices to Vision: A Community Vision for Albany’s Waterfront. Prepared for the City of Albany, California. April 5, 2010. http://www.voicestovision.com
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 105 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Gillies, S. and J. Kelley. 2001. California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 record (DPR 523) for the Fleming Point Pier, P-01-010617. Record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.
Goals Project. 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of key plants, fish, and wildlife. P.R. Olofson, editor. Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, California.
Goda, Y. 1985. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. University of Tokyo Press, Japan.
Golden Gate Audubon (GGA). 2006. A Census of the Birdlife in the Eastshore State Park: October 2005–September 2006. Prepared by members of Golden Gate Audubon, Berkeley, California.
Goldman, H.B. 1969. Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill. Special Report 97, California Division of Mines and Geology.
Hanson, L.A. 1998. Effects of suspended sediment on animals in a San Francisco Bay eelgrass habitat. Masters Thesis. California State University, Hayward.
Hertlein, Leo George. 1951. Invertebrate Fossils and Fossil Localities in the San Francisco Bay Area. In Geology Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties: History, Landscape, Geology, Fossils, Minerals, Industry, and Routes to Travel, prepared by Olaf P. Jenkins, pp. 187-192. Bulletin 154. State of California Division of Mines, San Francisco.
Hertlein, Leo George. 1953. Cretaceous Ammonite of Franciscan Group, Marin County, California. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 40(8):1985-2002.
Hickman, J. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. 156 pp.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.C. Zhao. 2007: Global Climate Projections in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Kenworthy, W.J., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, R. Coles, G. Pergent, and C. Pergent. 2006. Conservation Biology and Seagrasses. pp. 595-623 in A. W. D. Larkum, R. J. Orth, and C. M. Duarte (eds.). Seagrass Biology. Kluwer Academic Press.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 106 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Kimmerer, W. 2009. Science Goals for the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project. Revised December 14, 2009.
Kitting, C.L. and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 1992. Seagrasses of San Francisco Bay: Status Management and Conservation. pp. 388-393 in Natural Areas Global Symposium National Park Service, NPS D-374.
Kozloff, E.N. 1993. Seashore Life of the Northern Pacific Coast. An illustrated guide to Northern California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London.
Lee, C.H. and M. Praszker. 1969. Bay mud developments and related structural foundations, in Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill, edited by H.B. Goldman, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 97, Sacramento, California. pp. 41-85.
Leidy, R.A. 2007. Ecology, Assemblage Structure, Distribution, and Status of Fishes in Streams Tributary to the San Francisco Estuary, California. SFEI Contribution #530. San Francisco Estuary Institute. Oakland, CA.
Levine-Fricke. 1989. Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering Report, Santa Fe Albany Waterfront Project, Albany, California. L-F 1616. January.
Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.485-497. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2009. Seventh Annual Monitoring Report for the India Basin Wetland Creation and Enhancement Project, City and County of San Francisco, California. Unpublished Report for Airports Commission, City and County of San Francisco, California. 20 pp.
LSA Associates, Inc. 2002a. Habitat Issues - Animal Life section in Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Coastal Conservancy, January 2002.
LSA Associates, Inc. 2002b. Recreation, Scenic, and Cultural Resources section in Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Coastal Conservancy, February 2002.
LSA Associates, Inc. 2002c. Habitat Issues - Plant Life section in Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Coastal Conservancy, February 2002.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 107 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
LSA Associates, Inc. 2001a. Land Use, Traffic/Circulation, and Utilities – Traffic/Circulation section in Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Coastal Conservancy, September 2001.
LSA Associates, Inc. 2001b. Land Use, Traffic/Circulation, and Utilities – Utilities and Public Services section in Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Coastal Conservancy, September 2001.
Merkel, K.W. and Associates. 2004. Baywide eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) inventory in San Francisco Bay: Eelgrass atlas. Report prepared for Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglass, the State of California Department of Transportation and NOAA Fisheries. http://www.biomitigation.org
Merkel, K.W. and Associates. 2009 in review. San Francisco Bay Eelgrass Atlas, October-November 2009. Submitted to: California Department of Transportation and National Marine Fisheries Service.
Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2007. DSI-3505 Hourly Integrated Surface Data for San Francisco International Airport, 1948-2007, NOAA, 2007.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996. Navigational Chart 18649, February 3, 1996.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA Restoration Portal, https://habitat.noaa.gov/restorationtechniques/public/habitat.cfm?HabitatID=2&HabitatTopic ID=12 (accessed May 3, 2010).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. Report on the Subtidal Habitats and Associated Biological Taxa in San Francisco Bay. National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, California. June 2007.
National Park Service. 1997. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, and J.D. Williams (eds.). 2004. A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Sixth edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 20.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 108 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Page, B.M. 1966. Geology of the Coast Ranges of California. In Geology of Northern California, edited by E.H. Bailey, pp. 255-276. Bulletin 190, California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco.
Perkins, J. and J. Boatwright. 1995. The San Francisco Bay Area - On Shaky Ground. Association of Bay Area Governments Report. Oakland, California. 56 pp.
Pettitt, G.A. 1973. Berkeley: The Town and Gown of it. Howell-North Books, Berkeley, California.
Philip Williams & Associates, LTD (PWA). 2007. Flood Analyses Report. Appendix to EDAW et al. 2007. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report. Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. December 2007.
Philip Williams & Associates, LTD (PWA). 2002. Environmental Conditions – Hydrology and Topography section in Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Coastal Conservancy, September 2001, revised February 2002.
Presidio Vascular Plant Occurrence Database (Presidio), 2004 database of vascular plant occurrences provided to CalFlora by the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, 2004, Building 201, Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA 94123. [email protected]
Radbruch, D.H. 1957. Areal and Engineering Geology of the Oakland West Quadrangle, California, United States Geologic Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-239.
Reid, F.A. 2006. Mammals of North America. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, Massachusetts.
San Francisco News-Call Archives 1947. Water Taxi to Golden Gate Fields, Mary Beth Seaborn and Beverly Wrinkle on Deck. Bancroft Library, BANC PIC 1959.010—NEG, Part 2, Box 86, [68719.03].
Sanborn Map Company. 1911. Insurance Maps of Berkeley, Including Albany, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California.
Schlocker, J., M.G. Bonilla, and R.W. Imlay. 1954. Ammonite indicates Cretaceous age for part of Franciscan Group in San Francisco Bay Area, California. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 38(11):2372-2381.
Schoellhamer, D.H. 2009. Suspended sediment in the Bay: Past a tipping point. Pp. 56-67 in The Pulse of the Estuary: Monitoring and Managing Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 109 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Schwarz, S. 2003. Creek Mouths along the Bay Trail in Berkeley, Albany and South Richmond. Friends of Five Creeks
Schwarz, S. 2007. Lower Cordornices Creek. Friends of Five Creeks
Schwarz, S. 2008. Albany Hill and Cerrito Creek – History and Future. Friends of Five Creeks
Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Simenstad, C.A. 1994. Faunal associations and ecological interactions in seagrass communities of the Pacific Northwest coast. pp. 11-18 in S. Wyllie-Echeverria, A. M. Olson and M. J. Hershman (eds.). Seagrass science and policy in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a seminar series. (SMA 94-1). EPA 910/R-94-004. 63 pp.
Sowers, J. 1995. Creek and Watershed Map of Oakland and Berkeley. Oakland Museum of California.
Spratt, J.D. 1981. The evolution of California’s herring roe fishery: Catch allocation, limited entry and conflict resolution. California Fish and Game 78: 20-44.
Stenzel, L.E., C.M. Hickey, J.E. Kjelmyr, and G.W. Page. 2002. Abundance and distribution of shorebirds in the San Francisco Bay Area. Western Birds 33:69–98.
Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002. Environmental Conditions – Geology/Soils section in Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Coastal Conservancy, September 2001, revised January 2002.
Takekawa, J.Y., G.W. Page, J.M. Alexander, and D.R. Becker. 2000. Waterfowl and Shorebirds of the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Pages 309–316 in P. R. Olofson, editor. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of key plants, fish, and wildlife. Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, California.
Tetra Tech. 1994. Phase II Site Assessment, Fleming Point Property, Albany, California. Prepared for East Bay Regional Park District, September 15, 1994. TC 9604-11
Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs. US Army Corps of Engineers, EC 1165-2-211.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 110 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1984. Shore Protection Manual (SPM), Vol. I and II, Washington, DC 20314.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Soil Survey of Alameda County, California, Western Part.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a. Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta (Robust spineflower) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. Suaeda californica (California sea-blite) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1899. California, San Francisco Quadrangle. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
URS Corporation (URS). 2008. Berkeley/Albany Ferry Terminal Study Draft EIS/EIR. Prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. October 2008. van der Meer, J.W. 2002. Technical Report: Wave Run-up and Wave Overtopping at Dikes. Technical Advisory Committee on Flood Defence. Delft, May 2002.
Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC (WRT). 2001. Recreation, Scenic, and Cultural Resources – Recreation section in Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Coastal Conservancy, April 2001.
Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). Berkeley Ferry Fact Sheet, undated. Available online at http://www.watertransit.org/proposedRoutes/Berkeley_Fact_Sheet.pdf, accessed May 13, 2010.
Werme, C., J. Hunt, E. Beller, K. Cayce, M. Klatt, A. Melwani, E. Polson and R. Grosinger. 2009. Removal of Creosote-Treated Pilings and Structures from San Francisco Bay. Draft report prepared for California State Coastal Conservancy, December 14, 2009.
Whittaker, R. 2003. Carlo Ferretti’s Cove. Works & Conversations magazine. Issue No. 8: Objects of Presence. October 6, 2003.
Wiegel, R.L. 1964. Oceanographical Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 532.
Wyllie-Echeverria, S. and P.J. Rutten. 1989. Inventory of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in San Francisco/San Pablo Bay. National Marine Fisheries Service Administrative Report SWR- 89-05.
Zabin, C.J., S. Attoe, E.D. Grosholz and C. Coleman-Hulbert. 2009. Shellfish Restoration Goals. Report for the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project. 107 pp. + appendices.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 111 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing owl (Spetyto cunicularia hypugaea). Habitat management series for unique or endangered species. Technical Report T-N-250. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.
12.1.1 Personal Communications Baye, Peter, Ph.D., Coastal Plant Ecologist. Electronic mail correspondence with Leslie Allen, LSA, September 10, 2010.
Chaney, Ann, City of Albany Community Development Director. Telephone conversation with Leslie Allen, LSA, June 23, 2010.
Cunningham, Richard, City of Albany Public Works Manager. Telephone conversation with Leslie Allen, LSA, April 27, 2010.
Huo, Lee Chien, Bay Trail Planner, Association of Bay Area Governments. Telephone conversation with Leslie Allen, LSA, June 30, 2010.
Latta, Marilyn, State Coastal Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Katharyn Boyer, March 1, 2010.
Swearingen, Mark, East Bay Municipal Utility District New Business Office. Electronic mail correspondence with Leslie Allen, LSA, September 13, 2010.
Takei, Kevin, East Bay Regional Park District. Electronic mail correspondence with Chris Barton, East Bay Regional Park District, April 19, 2010.
Takei, Kevin, East Bay Regional Park District. Electronic mail correspondence with Leslie Allen, LSA, April 21, 2010.
Wainwright-de la Cruz, Susan, U.S. Geological Survey. Electronic mail correspondence with Katharyn Boyer, June 9, 2009.
Wolcott, Tony, City of Albany Urban Forester. Electronic mail correspondence with Ann Chaney, City of Albany Community Development Director, unknown date 2010.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) 112 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK,PARK, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX A MASTER PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS RELEVANT TO THE ALBANY BEACH STUDY AREA LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Table A-1: Plan Guidelines, Goals and Policies Relevant to the Albany Beach Feasibility Study Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language INFRASTRUCTURE Eastshore State Park General Plan
Recreation Goal 1 A setting where all Californians can enjoy dramatic Bay views and natural open space in the midst of an urban setting. A balanced range of high quality recreational opportunities that facilitate and enhance the public's enjoyment and appreciation of the Recreation Goal 2 Eastshore park project's natural, cultural, and scenic resources. A range of recreational opportunities and facilities that recognizes and responds to the unique pressures on the Eastshore park Recreation Goal 3 project to address the continually shifting demand for public recreation. Recreational facilities that are sensitively sited and designed to ensure protection of resource values as well as contributing to the Recreation Goal 4 park project's identity and sense of place. Provide visitor-serving and operations facilities within the park project as needed to facilitate the public's enjoyment of the natural Guideline VISIT-2 setting. Ensure that new visitor facilities and associated services reflect a balance between the need for resource protection, recreation, and Guideline VISIT-3 interpretation and education. In the planning of new visitor-serving facilities, evaluate services provided by local entities, such as those in the Berkeley Marina Guideline VISIT-6 area, to provide complementary facilities and programs. The public's enjoyment of this shoreline will be facilitated by providing for a wide range of recreational activities, from nature Guideline VISIT-8 appreciation to active sports activities, and by providing water-oriented and land-oriented facilities. Recreational opportunities and facilities should be planned within a regional context, focusing on complementing, rather than Guideline VISIT-9 duplicating, existing regional facilities and on creating new opportunities that respond to the specific characteristics of the Eastshore.
Guideline VISIT-10 Site facilities and areas for more intense recreational use in areas with less significant habitat value. Visitor support facilities such as restrooms, water fountains, benches, picnic tables, and parking will be provided in convenient Guideline VISIT-11 locations throughout the park project. Support the concept of an aquatic Bay Trail by providing conveniently spaced shoreline access/resting points along the length o f the Guideline VISIT-12 park project. Comply with applicable local and state laws and regulations that restrict or prohibit the use of motorized watercraft within the park Guideline VISIT-13 project waters. Enhance the recreational use of Bay waters by kayakers, windsurfers, dragon boats, and other human-powered watercraft by providing safe and convenient Bay access facilities. Such facilities will be sited so that they respect III-40 Eastshore State Park General Plan sensitive shoreline habitat and features. The character of access accommodations (e.g., ramps, steps, gravel/sand beach, etc.) and their design shall be responsive to both the specific setting and the nature of the projected use. Such facilities should be designed to minimize dependence on regular, ongoing maintenance operations, and to avoid altogether activities that would Guideline VISIT-14 require damaging the environment to remain operational.
Guideline VISIT-15 Provide upland facilities such as parking, restrooms, potable water, lay-down areas, etc. that support aquatic recreation uses.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language Incorporate interpretive and educational facilities and programs into the park project. Appropriate facilities may include interpretive Guideline VISIT-16 centers, observation platforms/bird blinds, vista points, interpretive signage, and public art. Enhance existing trails and introduce new trails that ensure opportunities for visitors to enjoy the diverse topography, biotic communities, avian habitat areas, and scenic views in the park project. Provide fencing or signing of trails where necessary to Guideline VISIT-17 protect adjacent resources. Work with appropriate bird watching groups and other groups specializing in avian resources to identify services, programs, and Guideline VISIT-18 facilities that would enhance the public's ability to understand and appreciate the avian resource. To the degree practicable, all landscape plantings in improved areas, not including turf areas, (e.g., around buildings, picnic areas, paths, etc.) should use California native species that are endemic to the East Bay shoreline in order to introduce the public to the area’s biotic heritage and to enhance habitat values for native wildlife species. All landscaping should also emphasize plant species Guideline AESTH-4 with low water requirements. In order to minimize disturbance to wildlife, lighting shall not be permitted in areas designated as preservation areas or in areas with sensitive habitat values. Night lighting should generally be restricted to the more developed areas of the park project (i.e., buildings, paths, parking lots, etc.) consistent with security and safety needs. Lighting plans shall be reviewed for compatibility with habitat Guideline AESTH-5 values prior to construction. Lighting levels (i.e., intensity/foot-candles) should generally be kept as low as possible, consistent with public safety standards. Luminaires should focus the light downward and prevent the splay of ambient light to other areas. Whenever possible use path-level or bollard type fixtures that keep the light source closer to the ground. Color-tinted and lower wattage lamps should be used to help Guideline AESTH-7 reduce lighting-related disturbance. Buildings, structures, and landscaping should be sited to be sensitive to scenic views from and through the park project. Given the general openness of the site, facilities should be sited to minimize the impact on views from key viewpoints (e.g., from southbound Guideline AESTH-11 University Avenue overpass). The maximum height for buildings and structures generally shall be one story. Two-story structures may be permitted in limited Guideline AESTH-12 instances (e.g., hostel, boathouse, etc.) consistent with the protection of significant scenic views. Specific project plans will be prepared for each management zone or sub-zone prior to any major development or enhancement projects. These plans will include project area resource surveys and monitoring as necessary. They will also take into account potential impacts of facilities and visitation increases on the resource base, the relationship of the new facilities to those already existing, traffic and access, views, etc. Specific project plans will specify where and how utilities (e.g., sewer, water, and drainage) Guideline OPER-1 will be provided, and local service providers will be coordinated with to ensure a unified delivery of services. The need for new public facilities will be balanced with their potential negative impacts to plant and wildlife species, scenic Guideline OPER-2 resources, and the spirit of the place. In particular, avoid adverse impacts to critical resource areas. Safeguarding Water: Conserve water and protect water quality by considering the following guidelines when implementing the plan: -Use municipal sewer systems instead of on-site septic sewer systems, to the degree practical; -Minimize the area of impervious surface, including building footprints and paving; -Implement measures to minimize the increase in either the rate or volume of storm water runoff, and improve the quality of runoff; -Use pervious surfaces in site development, and incorporate features such as vegetated filter strips and bioswales to slow and filter runoff; Guideline OPER-17 -Plant indigenous vegetation and species that are suited to the local environment;
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language -Where feasible, use reclaimed water or recycled water for uses such as landscape irrigation, fire protection, toilet flushing, wetlands recharge, and outdoor water features; -Use water-efficient irrigation design and systems for landscaping; -Use low-flow water fixtures within buildings. Energy and Atmosphere: Design the project to enhance energy efficiency and expand the use of renewable resources by considering the following guidelines when implementing the plan: -Light the minimum area for the minimum time. Limit illumination to areas with actual night use or extreme security concerns; -Clearly identify the actual purpose of lighting to determine minimum acceptable levels; -Use simple timers, motion-sensors, or photocells to turn lights on and off at seasonally appropriate times; -Use occupancy sensors within buildings to turn lights on and off; -Use cut-off fixtures, shades, or highly focused low-voltage lamps to avoid spillover. Linear "tube lights" and fiberoptics can be used to light the way for pedestrians without illuminating a large area; -Use energy-efficient lamps and ballasts, including low-voltage lighting to decrease power and energy usage; -Use renewable energy sources for lighting and other outdoor power. Photovoltaic (PV) power is generally cost effective, and can be used for applications such as solar path-lights, streetlights, security lights, pumps, and irrigation systems; -Integrate PV panels into the architectural design of buildings and structures; -Use energy efficient equipment and fixtures; -Integrate facilities for car, bus, train, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of transport, thus reducing dependence on private cars to access the park project; -Design site circulation patterns to encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement and reduce the need for automobile use once in Guideline OPER-18 the park project. Materials and Resources: Minimize the life-cycle impact of materials by considering the following guidelines when implementing the plan: -Reduce material use whenever possible, and reuse and recycle materials whenever possible; -Reduce material requirements through effective site layout; -Design and site structures with careful regard to site specific conditions in order to avoid structural, maintenance, and ecological problems; -Specify reused materials where possible; -Specify recycled-content materials (e.g., wood substitutes, concrete, asphalt, etc.) for site use, based on life-cycle performance requirements; -Consider factors such as renewability (can the material be grown or naturally replenished?), sustainable production (will resources be used up too fast?), and recyclability when selecting materials; -Practice effective waste management (recycling); -Limit paved areas to the strict minimum required for their intended purpose; -Avoid over-designing paved areas by distinguishing the structural requirements for light-vehicular, heavy-vehicular, and Guideline OPER-19 pedestrian paving. For light-duty roads and paths, stabilize without pavement. All programs in the Eastshore park project will be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All proposed Guideline OPER-21 structures and landscape features will be evaluated during their design for their compliance with ADA standards. The development and enhancement of the Eastshore park project for public use will mandate compliance with certain requirements Guideline OPER-22 regulating construction. These requirements include:
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language -Title 24, CCR, Part 2, California Building Code for building construction standards; -Title 24, CCR, California Building Code together with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to cover access compliance; -Title 24, CCR, California Building Code, Part 9 the California Fire Code. Ensure that the level and character of use within the Eastshore park project are managed in such a way so as not to exceed the Capacity Goal carrying capacity of park project resources. Prior to site-specific development or development of management plans, survey and review areas of potential impacts, employing Guideline CAPACITY-2 appropriate personnel and responsible agencies, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Use the Eastshore state park project General Plan management zones established in this Plan as the guide for allowing and managing appropriate types and levels of public use of park resources. Periodically assess resource conditions and design and implement appropriate actions to manage public and department operational impacts while assuring maintenance of acceptable resource Guideline CAPACITY-3 conditions. Provide shoreline stairs and/or ramp at the south side of the Albany Neck in order to enhance water access for windsurfers and other human powered watercraft. Work with windsurfers and other user groups to explore options for conveying equipment from the Guideline A-16 drop-off to the access point. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan The District will endeavor to assist individuals and groups who require special assistance with programs or facilities because of physical disability or economic circumstances. The District will provide areas and facilities that serve the recreational needs of park users, in accordance with the plans, policies, and park classifications adopted by the Board of Directors. The District will generally not develop or provide facilities that are more appropriately provided by local recreational and park agencies. Where possible and appropriate, the District will provide multiple- use facilities to serve recreational needs. The District will expand its comprehensive trail system by providing more hiking and equestrian narrow trails and more multiple- use paved and unpaved trails. A primary objective will be to provide inter-connecting trails and to link the regional parks through a District-wide system of trails.
The District will continue to add narrow trails throughout the system of regional parklands. The District will continue to plan for and expand the system of paved, multi- use regional trails connecting parklands and major population centers. The District will continue to develop group and family picnic facilities throughout the parks system and will continue to improve the reservation system. The District will continue to plan, develop and provide a regional system of aquatic facilities at parks that can support these activities. The District will strive to improve public access to lakes and to the San Francisco Bay and Delta shorelines for boating and fishing, and will increase access to swimming beaches. The District will continue to provide special recreational facilities throughout the parklands to broaden the range of opportunities in the parks and to take advantage of existing resources. The District will ensure that these facilities are compatible with the District’s vision and mission, with other parkland resources and priorities, and with public needs and demands. ensure that these facilities are compatible with the District’s vision and mission, with other parkland resources and priorities, and with public needs and demands.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-4 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language The District will coordinate with other agencies and organizations involved in planning for jointly managed regional trails or trails that extend beyond the District’s jurisdiction. When applicable, the District will use planning and environmental studies done by or in cooperation with other agencies for trail planning and development. The District will seek to locate facilities in a manner that preserves open space whenever possible. The District will design proposed facilities so that their color, scale, style, and materials will blend with the natural environment. Park improvements will be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife habitats, plant populations, and other resources. The District will fully comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the development of new facilities. Evidence of CEQA compliance will be provided in the planning document or separately as a project-specific CEQA document. The District will also comply, when appropriate, with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). New utility lines will be placed underground on land owned, operated, or managed by the District to retain the optimal visual qualities of the area. Rights-of-way and easements for utilities will not be granted without under- grounding. The District will work in cooperation with the utility companies to place existing overhead utilities underground (unless so doing conflicts with applicable codes) as soon as practical and will work with other agencies and neighbors to reduce visual impacts on adjacent lands. The District will seek to avoid the construction of high voltage power lines within the parklands, particularly in areas of sensitive or aesthetically important resources and in preserve areas. The District will keep its lands, including all ridges and peaks, free of additional communication facilities in order to maintain open viewshed, natural conditions, and public use as well as to limit vehicular and service activities. Communication sites will be regulated by the provisions of the 1994 Communication Site Policy (see Appendix, page 78). No new licenses will be granted beyond December 31, 1999, except for efforts that will consolidate sites or improve visual quality. The District will work to reduce the detrimental visual impact of buildings, towers, and access roads at existing sites and will work with other agencies and neighbors to reduce this impact on adjacent lands. City of Albany General Plan Develop a comprehensive water conservation policy for City facilities and new development, including requirements for drought- resistant landscaping, water-conserving fixtures, and continue to support EBMUD public information campaigns to reduce water Policy CROS 4.6 consumption.
Policy CROS 5.1 Consider the scenic and visual importance of the waterfront area in any future private and public development. Further preserve the scenic value of the Albany shoreline by prohibiting construction of any building or structure within a 100 foot Policy 5.2 minimum of the shoreline.
Goal CROS 6 Develop the maximum feasible park and open space areas in Albany. Work in conjunction with all existing and potential recreational land-holding parties to promote joint planning, acquisition, development, and joint use and maintenance of park sites and recreational facilities, including childcare, community facilities and Policy CROS 6.2 athletic fields. Achieve a complimentary mix of private and public uses at the Albany Waterfront which provide for maximum feasible open space, Goal CROS 7 recreation and public access to the waterfront area. Implement the Bay Trail Plan along the Albany shoreline. Work with the landowner, the track operator, appropriate citizen and environmental groups, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, Caltrans, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Coastal Policy CROS 7.1 Conservancy and ABAG to achieve this goal.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language Require that public access to the shoreline and to Albany Point be a part of any future waterfront development plans, and that future automobile, pedestrian and bicycle access be consistent with and coordinated with future State and regional park and open space Policy CROS 7.3 plans at the waterfront. Continue to work with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley, and other State, regional, and local agencies to develop the former Albany landfill site into a State Waterfront Park and to develop the first phase of Policy CROS 7.4 the Eastshore State Park. Work closely with EBRPD, the cities of Berkeley, Emeryville, Richmond and Oakland, and other State, regional and local groups to Policy CROS 7.5 complete the acquisition, planning and development of the Eastshore State Park. Assure that the planning for the Eastshore State Park is consistent with the City’s conceptual plan for the Albany portion of the Policy CROS 7.6 Eastshore State Park. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Eastshore State Park General Plan Park-wide Goals and Guidelines:
Circulation Goal An integrated and efficient multi-modal circulation system that facilitates visitor access to, and movement within, the park project. Design a circulation system that separates vehicular from non-vehicular traffic as much as possible in order to enhance non- Guideline CIRC-2 vehicular modes and reduce potential conflicts. In order to minimize increases in traffic and the demand for parking, provide facilities that encourage and support alternate modes of Guideline CIRC-3 transportation to the Eastshore park project, including pedestrian, bicycle, bus, and boat. Emphasize walking, biking, and non-motorized boating as the primary and preferred modes of transportation within the Eastshore Guideline CIRC-4 park project. Provide a convenient and attractive system of multi-use trails throughout the park that links all subareas of the park project into an Guideline CIRC-6 integrated whole.
Guideline CIRC-7 To the extent feasible, the trail system will be designed and constructed to provide universal access. Recognize the Bay Trail as the park project's primary non-vehicular transportation corridor and an important means of unifying Guideline CIRC-8 public use areas within the non-contiguous portions of the park project. In order to improve access to and through the park project, support neighboring jurisdictions in their efforts to expedite the Guideline CIRC-9 completion of the Bay Trail as set forth in ABAG's Bay Trail Master Plan. Improve access to the park project from the Bay Trail by adding spurs, laterals, and loops from the main trail corridor into the park Guideline CIRC-10 project. Coordinate with transit providers to provide more frequent transit service to the park, including weekends and holidays when visitation to the park project will be highest. Explore the possibility of having a north-south route along the Frontage Road in Guideline CIRC-12 addition to the existing east-west routes. Encourage public transit use by incorporating transit-friendly design features (e.g., bus pullouts, transit shelters, bus schedules) into Guideline CIRC-13 the park project. Explore, with AC Transit, adjoining jurisdictions, and local businesses, the feasibility of instituting an Eastshore shuttle service that Guideline CIRC-14 would link key activity centers within the park project, and provide connections to key activity centers in the project vicinity. This
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language would allow visitors to park in one area and then use the shuttle, instead of driving.
Guideline CIRC-17 Ensure that adequate parking is provided to accommodate public access to the park project and serve park uses and facilities.
Guideline CIRC-18 Distribute parking areas strategically throughout the Eastshore park project to support proposed activities and facilities. Given the limited amount of upland area within the park project, parking strategies that minimize the use of upland habitat for the development of parking lots should be explored, including the following: -Pursue shared parking arrangements with adjoining municipalities and landowners; -Work with local municipalities to explore the feasibility of increasing on-street parking in public rights-of-way on both a permanent and special event basis; -Design and implement parking improvements in phases in order to be responsive to actual use and demand and to avoid development of too much parking; -Base parking demand projections on typical use patterns, rather than worst case or special event scenarios; -Explore alternatives for accommodating special event parking conditions, such as the use of unpaved overflow parking areas, Guideline CIRC-19 satellite parking areas, special event shuttle service, etc. Albany Neck/Bulb Guidelines: Provide shoreline stairs and/or ramp at the south side of the Albany Neck in order to enhance water access for windsurfers and other human powered watercraft. Work with windsurfers and other user groups to explore options for conveying equipment from the Guideline A-16 drop-off to the access point. Generally prohibit, or enforce prohibition of vehicle access, other than for safety or maintenance personnel, beyond the roundabout Guideline A-17 on Buchanan Street. Maintain a comprehensive and integrated multi-use trail system that provides access throughout the Albany area. As specific improvements are planned for the Albany area, evaluate existing trails and identify trails that need to be closed, improved, or Guideline A-18 created. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan The District will provide access to parklands and trails to suit the level of expected use. Where feasible, the District will provide alternatives to parking on or use of neighborhood streets. The District will continue to advocate and support service to the regional park system by public transit. The District encourages the creation of local trail networks that provide additional access points to the regional parklands and trails, that help to provide loop trail experiences, and that connect the regional system to the community. The District will support other agencies in completing local trail networks that complement the Regional Trail system and will coordinate with local agencies to incorporate local trail connections into District brochures. City of Albany General Plan
Goal CIRC 4 Support public transit, and other means to reduce reliance on the automobile as the primary means of transportation. Increase pedestrian travel throughout the City by connecting major pathway systems such as BART linear park to other City, Policy CIRC 4.5 regional, and State Parks, and other community facilities.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language Increase disabled access throughout the City by installing curb cuts wherever feasible as part of new construction, repair or Policy CIRC 4.6 improvements to streets, sidewalks, pathways and trails.
Policy CIRC 4.7 Assure that sidewalks, pathways and trails used by pedestrians are safe and provide unhindered access for all.
Goal CIRC 6 Improve and enhance the City’s bicycle route and path system. Work to obtain funding sources to develop the Bay Trail in Albany along the entire East Bay Shoreline corridor as an alternative, Policy CIRC 6.2 parallel route to I-80. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND SITE REMEDIATION Eastshore State Park General Plan If design, improvement, and/or development plans involve onsite reuse and/or offsite disposal of soil, available chemical data should be reviewed for those specific locations. Additional testing in those areas may be warranted to evaluate the suitability of that soil for onsite reuse and/or offsite disposal. Evaluation of the data should include consideration of the existing Regional Park Prelimi nary OPER-8 Remediation Goals (PRG's) developed for the project site (found in the Unit Data File), as well as the planned future use of that soil. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan
There are no policies from the 1997 East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan directly relevant to hazardous materials and site remediation. City of Albany General Plan
Goal CHS 3 Reduce the exposure of present and future Albany residents and workers to hazardous materials. Evaluate and map the presence of hazardous materials at any development or redevelopment sites filled prior to 1974, or sites Guideline CHS 3.1 historically devoted to uses which may involved hazardous wastes. OTHER SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS Eastshore State Park General Plan Design, improvement, and/or development plans should consider the potential presence of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC's), methane gas, and remediation areas in the subject area. Site-specific data should be reviewed to determine whether additional chemical data and site characterization is required. Design plans should include consideration for potential methane gas build-up, particularly for improvements such as vault boxes or other enclosed structures that could collect methane gas from OPER-6 subsurface soils and fill materials. If design, improvement, and/or development plans involve intrusive activities, available chemical data should be reviewed for those specific locations. Depending on the scope and extent of intrusive activities, additional testing in those areas may be warranted to evaluate soil, groundwater, and soil-gas conditions that may be encountered. Furthermore, available data should be provided to the OPER-7 contractors to assist with worker health and safety considerations during actual soil and groundwater handling activities. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan The Public Safety staff provides police and fire services for the safety and protection of parkland users and employees, and for the natural resources, structures, and lands of the District.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-8 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language City of Albany General Plan
Goal CHS 1 Minimize the impact of flooding, seismic, and geologic hazards on the citizens of Albany and their property. Conserve riparian and littoral habitat within the area 100 feet from creek centerline in appropriate areas both for its importance in Guideline CHS 1.1 reducing flood impacts and for its aesthetic value. Require review of the Environmental Hazards Map at the time a development is proposed. Assure implementation of appropriate Guideline CHS 1.6 mitigation measures if hazards are identified.
Guideline CHS 2.4 Maintain present fire protection level of service throughout Albany.
Guideline CHS 2.5 Ensure that police service to all areas of Albany maintains its present level of services.
Goal CHS 3 Reduce the exposure of present and future Albany residents and workers to hazardous materials. Evaluate and map the presence of hazardous materials at any development or redevelopment sites filled prior to 1974, or sites Guideline CHS 3.1 historically devoted to uses which may involved hazardous wastes. PHYSICAL PROCESSES - HYDROLOGY Eastshore State Park General Plan Safeguarding Water: Conserve water and protect water quality by considering the following guidelines when implementing the plan: -Use municipal sewer systems instead of on-site septic sewer systems, to the degree practical; -Minimize the area of impervious surface, including building footprints and paving; -Implement measures to minimize the increase in either the rate or volume of storm water runoff, and improve the quality of runoff; -Use pervious surfaces in site development, and incorporate features such as vegetated filter strips and bioswales to slow and filter runoff; -Plant indigenous vegetation and species that are suited to the local environment; -Where feasible, use reclaimed water or recycled water for uses such as landscape irrigation, fire protection, toilet flushing, wetlands recharge, and outdoor water features; -Use water-efficient irrigation design and systems for landscaping; Guideline OPER-17 -Use low-flow water fixtures within buildings. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan Park water resources will be used for beneficial purposes. Water quality will be monitored to comply with established standards. The District will participate in cooperative efforts to plan comprehensive watershed management, and will adopt “best management practice” guidelines for District land use activities to minimize potential storm water pollution. The District will monitor land use planning and development activities by other agencies and cities to avoid potential adverse impacts to park land from pollutants generated by offsite or upstream sources.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-9 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language City of Albany General Plan
Goal CHS 1 Minimize the impact of flooding, seismic, and geologic hazards on citizens of Albany and their property. Require review of the Environmental Hazards Map at the time a development is proposed. Assure implementation of appropriate Policy CHS 1.6 mitigation measures if hazards are identified. PHYSICAL PROCESSES - GEOLOGY AND SOILS Eastshore State Park General Plan Consider surface conditions at each of the sites during the conceptual design phase to evaluate the potential for soil loss by erosion OPER-11 and to develop means (by grading, structural measures and/or other improvements) to control site erosion. Perform site-specific geotechnical investigations at the conceptual design phase of individual projects including: -Review and update geologic hazard data such as seismic site response, liquefaction potential, hazard from flood and inundation, and potential for earthquake-induced ground failure (lurching); -Evaluate potential settlements as a result of loads imposed by new buildings and structures, placement of new fills including landscape berms, mounds, levees, trails, roadways, bulkheads, ramps and slope protection measures; -Evaluate the impact improvements may have on static and seismic slope stability of existing fill slopes, and wetland slopes; -Prepare specific geotechnical recommendations for: seismic hazard mitigation including effects of liquefaction, placement of new fills, reworking of existing fills, placement of slope protection measures, provide geotechnical parameters for foundation design including estimates of differential settlements of underlying fills and soft clays, and effects of potentially liquefiable soils, and seismic lateral loads; -Prepare recommendations for construction-related issues including de-watering and temporary excavation support as required for OPER-12 construction of the proposed improvements and remediation activities. Prepare a comprehensive, detailed geotechnical design including slope geometries that provide adequate stability during short and long term static conditions and seismic ground shaking, slope stabilization/shoreline protection measures, grading of new habitat Guideline OPER-13 enhancements areas, bulkheads, ramps, and structures such as viewing platforms and interpretive centers. Perform a geotechnical review of final design documents to check conformance with recommendations of the detailed geotechnical OPER-14 investigations. Provide geotechnical engineer oversight for any construction that involves significant re-configuring or grading of the site, including OPER-15 projects such as creek day-lighting and shoreline stabilization or re-configuration. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan The District will identify existing and potential erosion problems and take corrective measures to repair damage and mitigate causative effects. The District will manage the parks to assure that an adequate cover of vegetation remains on the ground to provide soil protection. Where vegetative cover has been reduced or eliminated, the District will take steps to restore it, using native or naturalized plants adapted to the site. The District will minimize soil disturbance associated with construction and maintenance operations and avoid disruptive activities in areas with unstable soils, whenever possible. The District will arrest the progress of active gully erosion, where practical, and take action to restore these areas to stable conditions. The District will notify adjacent property owners of potential landslide situations on District lands to warn of potential risks and conform with applicable law, and will protect important geological and paleontological features from vandalism and misuse.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-10 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language City of Albany General Plan Goal CHS 1 Minimize the impact of flooding, seismic, and geologic hazards on citizens of Albany and their property. Require review of the Environmental Hazards Map at the time a development is proposed. Assure implementation of appropriate Policy CHS 1.6 mitigation measures if hazards are identified. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Eastshore State Park General Plan Park-wide Goals and Guidelines: Manage the park project's resources by balancing access to its scenic and recreational resources with the protection and restoration Natural Resources Goal of its natural resources for the enjoyment of the people of the San Francisco Bay region and the state of California. Preserve and enhance habitat values at appropriate upland, creek, open water, and wetland areas so that the character of the park Natural Resources Goal project's conservation and preservation areas more closely resemble the natural Bay shoreline. Plants Goal The long-term preservation and enhancement of the native plant communities within the park project. As specific projects are planned and implemented, develop and implement programs to remove invasive plant species to the extent possible, giving priority to the most noxious weeds. The Resource Inventory provides additional information about key invasive species (e.g., French broom, pampas grass, false bamboo, Kikuyu grass, fennel, yellow star-thistle, purple star-thistle, cardoon Guideline PLANTS-2 artichoke thistle, spurge, etc.) and their known locations in the park.
Guideline PLANTS-3 After removing invasive, exotic plant species, the affected areas generally should be re-vegetated with locally native plant sp ecies. In addition to increasing the presence of locally native plant species, a goal of all area specific enhancement programs should be to Guideline PLANTS-4 explore the potential for the re-introduction of rare and endangered plant species in appropriate locations. As part of the planning and design process for area-specific projects, and prior to commencement of any grading or construction related to new facilities or enhancements, a qualified wetland scientist will identify and delineate any "jurisdictional wetlands" that could be affected. The delineation will follow standard Army Corps of Engineers protocol and will be submitted to the Corps for Guideline PLANTS-5 review and verification If jurisdictional wetlands are located within or adjacent to areas that will be affected by the proposed activities, such activities will Guideline PLANTS-6 be planned and designed to avoid or minimize impacts to the delineated wetlands. In the event that some disturbance to wetlands is unavoidable, appropriate measures will be identified and implemented in consultation with appropriate resource agencies and monitored to ensure their long-term success. Such measures shall be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations relating to the protection of wetlands and shall ensure that proposed activities will not result in a net loss of wetland acreage or habitat value. Disturbed wetland areas will be revegetated entirely with locally native plant Guideline PLANTS-7 species. As part of the planning and design process for area-specific projects, explore the possibility of enhancing existing wetlands through re-vegetation and control of exotic species and/or expansion of wetland areas. Potentially suitable wetland restoration areas a re Guideline PLANTS-8 present in the Berkeley Meadow, the North Basin Strip (southern portion) and the Albany Bulb.
Guideline PLANTS-9 Provide long-term management to ensure the persistence and health of native plant communities.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-11 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language To the extent feasible, enhance or restore native plant communities in areas that have been identified as important for wildlife Guideline PLANTS-10 habitat restoration. To the extent feasible, use only locally native species in future plantings within conservation or preservation areas. "Locally native" species are defined here as those that are indigenous to the park, or native to Alameda and Contra Costa counties, and occur naturally in bayside settings. Limited plantings of non-native species may be acceptable in recreation areas, if such plantings are Guideline PLANTS-11 limited to species that are non-invasive and do not conflict with wildlife habitat values. As part of the planning and design process for area-specific projects, and prior to commencement of any grading or construction related to new facilities or enhancements, a qualified botanist will identify any special-status plant species that potentially occur in the affected area, and will conduct appropriately-timed surveys for the area. The Resource Inventory and appropriate resource Guideline PLANTS-12 agencies will be consulted to identify species of concern. If any special-status species are found within the areas that would be affected by the proposed activities, such activities will be Guideline PLANTS-13 planned and designed to avoid or minimize potential impacts during both the construction and post-construction periods. In the event that some disturbance to special-status species is unavoidable, appropriate measures to offset those impacts will be identified and implemented in consultation with a qualified botanist and appropriate resource agencies. Such measures shall be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations relating to the protection of rare, endangered, and federally and state-listed species, and necessary authorizations will be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the California Guideline PLANTS-14 Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Minimize disturbance to sandy foredune areas and relatively undisturbed beaches. These are rare habitat types along the Bay Guideline PLANTS-15 shoreline, and often support specialized native plant species.
Wildlife Goal The long-term preservation and enhancement of the park project's wildlife habitat. Provide long-term protection for the existing upland and nontidal wetland habitat within designated preserves and conservation areas, and minimize impacts on these areas due to development of trails and other park facilities. These areas provide habitat for the burrowing owl, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, other raptors, and loggerhead shrike. Upland wildlife habitat should also be Guideline WILDLIF-1 protected within recreation Areas to the extent feasible, consistent with the design of planned facilities. Provide long-term protection and enhancement of foraging and nesting habitat for burrowing owls at the upland Conservation Areas in the park, particularly at the Berkeley Meadow and the Albany Neck and Bulb. To the extent feasible, preserve burrowing owl den-sites (rodent burrows, riprap, or rubble piles) that are present in the park, and allow ground squirrel populations to persist (as a Guideline WILDLIF-2 source of burrows). To the extent feasible, locate visitor-serving facilities in areas already subject to considerable disturbance or of low resource value in Guideline WILDLIF-3 order to minimize disturbance to existing habitat areas. As part of the planning and design process for area-specific projects, and prior to commencement of any grading or construction related to new facilities or enhancements, a qualified wildlife biologist will identify any potential habitat for special-status wildlife species or important shorebird roost sites that exist in the affected area, and will conduct appropriately-timed surveys if such species may be disturbed by the proposed project (see Appendix A for procedures). The Resource Inventory and appropriate resource Guideline WILDLIF-4 agencies will be consulted to identify species of concern.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-12 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language If any special-status species or important shorebird roost sites are found within the areas that would be affected by the proposed activities, such activities will be planned and designed to avoid or minimize potential impacts during both the construction and post- Guideline WILDLIF-5 construction periods (see Appendix A for procedures). In the event that some disturbance to special-status species or important shorebird roost site is unavoidable, appropriate measures to offset those impacts will be identified and implemented in consultation with a qualified wildlife biologist and appropriate resource agencies. Such measures shall be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations relating to the protection of rare, endangered, federally and state-listed species, and necessary authorizations will be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Guideline WILDLIF-6 or the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Over time, a cumulative list of wildlife species observed during surveys conducted for individual improvement projects will be developed and maintained. This list should be kept in the Unit Data File, and used for educational purposes and as a baseline for future studies. Any fish and wildlife observations (e.g., records of special-status species, wildlife observed in specific areas of the park, and records of invasive species) that are reported by park personnel and other qualified observers should also be preserved in Guideline WILDLIF -8 the Unit Data File. Plantings in upland buffers between trails and sensitive habitat areas where necessary to provide a visual screen to minimize wildlife disturbance will be installed. At a minimum, the plantings should consist of locally native shrubs, but they may also include locally native herbaceous species. Such plantings would also provide cover for wildlife and could be used to screen fencing from view, if Guideline WILDLIF -9 desired. Trees will generally not be planted within 200 feet of tidal marsh areas and occupied burrowing owl nest or roost sites. Raptors, crows, and ravens often perch in trees to search for prey, and tree plantings near tidal marshes and burrowing owl nest sites may Guideline WILDLIF -10 expose burrowing owls and special-status species in the marshes to a higher incidence of predation. Disturbance to wildlife will be minimized by restricting access by people and dogs to sensitive wetland and upland habitat areas. Marsh birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and other water birds are vulnerable to disturbance when people and dogs are allowed too close to important nesting, feeding, or roosting areas. Park visitors and dogs can also disrupt nesting activities of raptors and oth er birds in upland areas. Trails and other facilities should be sited to maintain appropriate distances from sensitive areas. Signs should be posted restricting access to sensitive habitat areas. Fencing and vegetative buffers can be used between trails and sensitive habitat areas, as necessary to minimize disturbance of wildlife. Dogs can be prohibited from sensitive habitat areas or restricted to access Guideline WILDLIF -11 while on leash.
Marine Goal The long-term preservation and enhancement of the park project's marine habitat areas. To the degree permitted by federal and state law, prohibit the use of motorized boats and motorized personal watercraft throughout the park, in order to minimize disturbance of aquatic habitats for eelgrass, waterfowl, and other water birds. Work with local marinas to help notify boaters of these restrictions, and post conspicuous signs near boat ramps and other access points, identifying Guideline MARINE-1 restrictions on use of watercraft in the park project. Work with a qualified wildlife biologist and appropriate resource agencies to develop guidelines for the use of non-motorized vessels in selected aquatic areas (e.g., the North Basin and Brickyard Cove), as necessary to minimize disturbance to water birds or Guideline MARINE-3 other marine species.
Guideline MARINE-4 Discourage launching of non-motorized vessels from environmentally sensitive areas of the shoreline. In aquatic recreation and conservation areas, encourage fishing from designated piers, structurally-protected shoreline areas, and Guideline MARINE-6 from vessels.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-13 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language To the degree permitted by federal and state law, prohibit the collection of invertebrates for food or bait in tidal mudflats, tidal Guideline MARINE-7 marshes, and natural rocky shoreline areas within the park project.
Guideline MARINE-8 Post signs in appropriate areas identifying the restrictions on fishing and collection of invertebrates within the park project. Enhance seasonal wetlands, particularly at the Berkeley Meadow. Explore the feasibility of enhancing seasonal wetlands by deepening or enlarging them to pond water for increased lengths of time, thereby benefiting water birds, amphibians, and aquatic Habitat Enhancement Goal invertebrates. Restore coastal scrub habitat at the Berkeley Meadow, Albany Neck and Bulb, Brickyard, and other upland areas by removing Habitat Enhancement Goal invasive species and planting locally native species. Restore and expand eelgrass beds in the tidal waters of the park, including sites off the South Richmond Shoreline, Albany Beach, Habitat Enhancement Goal the North Basin, and Emeryville Crescent. To the degree practicable, all landscape plantings in improved areas, not including turf areas, (e.g., around buildings, picnic areas, paths, etc.) should use California native species that are endemic to the East Bay shoreline in order to introduce the public to the area's biotic heritage and to enhance habitat values for native wildlife species. All landscaping should also emphasize plant species Guideline AESTH-4 with low water requirements. Dog use and activity in the park project will be managed according to State Parks’ guidelines in order to protect habitat values and enhance public safety. As such, dogs will not under any circumstances be permitted in management sub-zones designated as preservation areas or on any beach. Elsewhere in the park project, dogs will be allowed consistent with the managing agency’s laws, rules and polices. The Point Isabel/North Point Isabel area is the only area of the park project in which off-leash dog use will be Guideline OPER-5 permitted (see area-specific guidelines for more detailed guidelines affecting the Point Isabel/North Point Isabel area). Sustainable Sites: Minimize the negative environmental impacts of site enhancement, development, maintenance, and operations by considering the following guidelines when implementing the General Plan: -Reuse or rehabilitate existing disturbed or developed sites, and avoid developing sites that contain sensitive species, habitats, or wetlands; -Facilitate access to public transportation to provide an alternative to the private automobile; -Minimize impacts during construction. Use site sedimentation and erosion control plans. Limit heavy equipment access; -Preserve existing vegetation, especially native plants, and protect such vegetation during construction; -Limit the area of parking, paving, and lawns to the minimum that will actually be used; -Design new plantings as diverse communities of species well-adapted to the site. Use primarily native species that require less maintenance and less water than exotics. Reserve exotics for accents. Avoid use of any plant that is invasive. Use plants that attract desirable wildlife; -Employ integrated pest management (IPM) against weeds, insects and other pests, with biological controls (e.g., parasitic insects, pheromone traps, natural pesticides, and companion-planting) as the first line of defense; -Use mulching, alternative mowing, and composting to maintain plant health. Organic mulch around plantings conserves water OPER-16 and maintains favorable soil temperatures. Albany Beach Guidelines: Protect the dune habitat at the Albany Beach by introducing boardwalks and/or fencing. Boardwalks should be designed to provide Guideline A-1 for wheelchair access.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-14 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language Restore the dune vegetation by removing noxious weeds (e.g., iceplant and Kikuyu grass) and planting locally native species tha t are adapted to this habitat, and explore the feasibility of re-introducing rare or endangered species that are native to the Bay Area, such Guideline A-2 as California seablite, San Francisco spineflower, and robust spineflower, to the dune area.
Guideline A-3 Explore the feasibility of expanding the dune areas behind the beach. Protect and enhance eelgrass beds that exist off Albany Beach. Explore the possibility of these eelgrass beds being a possible Guideline A-4 mitigation site (i.e., a receiver site for mitigation from projects outside of the park project). Enhance beach/Bay access for non-motorized watercraft by creating a vehicle drop-off and parking at the south end of the beach. Guideline A-5 Locate restroom facilities near the beach water access. Albany Neck/Bulb Guidelines: Protect and enhance upland habitat for wildlife at the Albany Bulb, Albany Neck, and the northern and eastern perimeter of Albany Guideline A-12 Plateau (the conservation areas). Enhance the upland scrub habitat by removing noxious weeds and planting locally native species. Develop and implement a program for the removal of safety hazards associated with construction debris on the surface of the Nec k and Bulb (e.g., unstable rubble piles, unsafe structures and protruding rebar). The clean-up program should be designed to minimize disturbance to upland wildlife habitat. Approaches that involve mass grading and the wholesale removal of vegetation are not appropriate. Given the magnitude of the task, priorities for clean-up, areas for potential closure to public access, and appropriate Guideline A-13 phasing should be identified. Explore options for enhancing the safety, aesthetic, structural and habitat conditions along the south shoreline of the Albany Neck, including the following: -Address transition from Albany Beach into armored shoreline areas including the potential for extending sand beach condition further west; -Break up large concrete and construction debris to improve appearance, reduce safety hazards, etc.; -Consider placement of fill (sand, gravel, cobbles or soil) over the rubble in some select locations to improve habitat, planting, access, safety, etc.; -In some locations, align trail and access routes against the hill slope to create more potential space for shoreline grading; -Consider and balance necessary structural function and potential habitat enhancements; -Consider creation of small pocket beaches (shallower profile shoreline) within this straight section to increase sand and gravel beach habitat as well as recreational access; Guideline A-15 -Consider re-grading northwest corner (intersection of neck and bulb) to shallow slope condition to create sand or gravel beach. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan The District will maintain, manage, conserve, enhance, and restore park wildland resources to protect essential plant and animal habitat within viable, sustainable ecosystems. The District will maintain and manage vegetation to conserve, enhance, and restore natural plant communities; to preserve and protect populations of rare, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species and their habitats; and, where possible, to protect biodiversity and to achieve a high representation of native plants and animals. The District will conserve, enhance, and protect native animal species and enhance their habitats to maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems. Non-native and feral animals will be managed to minimize conflicts with native wildlife species. The District will cooperate on a regular basis with other public and private land managers and recognized wildlife management experts to address wildlife management issues on a regional scale.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-15 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language The District will identify, evaluate, conserve, enhance, and restore rare, threatened, endangered, or locally important species of plants and animals and their habitats, using scientific research, field experience, and other proven methodologies. Populations of listed species will be monitored through periodic observations of their condition, size, habitat, reproduction, and distribution. Conservation of rare, threatened, and endangered species of plants and animals and their supporting habitats will take precedence over other activities, if the District determines that the other uses and activities would have a significant adverse effect on these natural resources. The District will manage riparian and other wetland environments and their buffer zones to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of these important resources and to prevent the destruction, loss, or degradation of habitat. The District will participate in the preservation, restoration, and management of riparian and wetland areas of regional significance, and will not initiate any action that could result in a net decrease in park wetlands. The District will encourage public access to the Bay/Delta shoreline, but will control access to riparian and wetland areas, when necessary, to protect natural resources. The District will conserve, enhance, and restore biological resources to promote naturally functioning ecosystems. Conservation efforts may involve using controlled grazing, in accordance with Wildland Management Policies and Guidelines, prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, integrated pest management, and/or habitat protection and restoration. Restoration activities may involve the removal of invasive plants and animals or the reintroduction of native or naturalized species adapted to or representative of a given site. Plant and animal pest species will be controlled by using integrated pest management (IPM) procedures and practices adopted by the Board of Directors. The District will employ integrated pest management practices to minimize the impact of undesirable species on natural resources and to reduce pest related health and safety risks to the public within developed facilities and/or high-use recreational areas. The District will manage park wildlands using modern resource management practices based on scientific principles supported by available research. New scientific information will be incorporated into the planning and implementation of District wildland management programs as it becomes available. The District will coordinate with other agencies and organizations in a concerted effort to inventory, evaluate, and manage natural resources and to maintain and enhance the biodiversity of the region. The District will identify important natural resources in the parks and develop measures for protecting them. Based on its evaluation, the District will make recommendations and take appropriate action. The District will consider the needs of potential park users along with resource information and recreational policies in determining future recreational facilities. City of Albany General Plan
Goal CROS 4 Strive to maintain and improve the quality of Albany’s natural environment and cultural resources, and natural resources in general. Promote the preservation of trees and other vegetation by requiring an inventory of significant site vegetation prior to development Policy CROS 4.3 and application review.
Policy CROS 4.5 Require tree preservation measures during site design and construction. Consider the important, surrounding wildlife and vegetation resources that must be adequately protected when developing the Policy CROS 7.2 alignment of the Bay Trail.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-16 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Eastshore State Park General Plan
Cultural Resources Goal Appropriate protection, preservation, and interpretation of significant cultural resources identified within the park project. As part of the planning and design process for area-specific projects, and prior to commencement of any ground disturbance, grading, or construction related to new facilities or enhancements, a qualified cultural resource professional will conduct appropriate Guideline CULT-1 record reviews and any necessary fieldwork to determine the presence of cultural resources or culturally sensitive areas. If the cultural resource investigations indicate the presence of cultural resources or culturally sensitive areas within or adjacent to areas that will be affected by the proposed activities, such activities will be planned and designed to avoid or minimize impacts to Guideline CULT-2 the identified resources. In the event that some disturbance to cultural resources is unavoidable, appropriate measures will be identified and implemented in consultation with a qualified cultural resource professional. Such measures shall be consistent with all applicable rules and Guideline CULT-3 regulations relating to the protection of cultural resources. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan The District will maintain a current map and written inventory of all cultural features and sites found on park land, and will preserve and protect these cultural features and sites “in situ,” in accordance with Board policy. The District will evaluate significant cultural and historic sites to determine if they should be nominated for State Historic Landmark status or for the National Register of Historic Places; may acquire cultural and historic resource sites when they are within lands that meet parkland acquisition criteria; and will maintain an active archive of its institutional history and the history of its parklands and trails. The District will participate in efforts to protect scenic or cultural resources, develop larger, multiagency open space preserves, provide recreational opportunities, protect agricultural use, avoid hazards, and plan for appropriate urban growth boundaries. The District will work with other jurisdictions to develop open space preservation plans and policies that recognize the District’s public interests in open space preservation and that are consistent with Board policy. City of Albany General Plan The City of Albany has land use authority for property under local jurisdiction through its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City has one goal in its General Plan that addresses cultural resources, as part of the Conservation, Recreation, and Open Space Element: Strive to maintain and improve the quality of Albany’s natural environment and cultural resources, and natural resources in Goal CROS-4 general. AESTHETICS Eastshore State Park General Plan Establish primary and secondary entry points to the park project, and develop design standards for these “gateway” areas that will create a sense of arrival and establish an initial identity and sense of place for the park project. Design standards and guidelines for Guideline AESTH-2 entry points should distinguish primary and secondary gateways. To the degree practicable, all landscape plantings in improved areas, not including turf areas, (e.g., around buildings, picnic areas, paths, etc.) should use California native species that are endemic to the East Bay shoreline in order to introduce the public to the area’s biotic heritage and to enhance habitat values for native wildlife species. All landscaping should also emphasize plant species Guideline AESTH-4 with low water requirements.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-17 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language In order to minimize disturbance to wildlife, lighting shall not be permitted in areas designated as preservation areas or in areas with sensitive habitat values. Night lighting should generally be restricted to the more developed areas of the park project (i.e., buildings, paths, parking lots, etc.) consistent with security and safety needs. Lighting plans shall be reviewed for compatibility with habitat Guideline AESTH-5 values prior to construction. Lighting levels (i.e., intensity/foot-candles) should generally be kept as low as possible, consistent with public safety standards. Luminaires should focus the light downward and prevent the splay of ambient light to other areas. Whenever possible use path-level or bollard type fixtures that keep the light source closer to the ground. Color-tinted and lower wattage lamps should be used to help Guideline AESTH-7 reduce lighting-related disturbance. Buildings, structures, and landscaping should be sited to be sensitive to scenic views from and through the park project. Given the general openness of the site, facilities should be sited to minimize the impact on views from key viewpoints (e.g., from southbound Guideline AESTH-11 University Avenue overpass). The maximum height for buildings and structures generally shall be one story. Two-story structures may be permitted in limited Guideline AESTH-12 instances (e.g., hostel, boathouse, etc.) consistent with the protection of significant scenic views. Albany Neck/Bulb Guidelines:
Guideline A-15 Explore options for enhancing the safety, aesthetic, structural and habitat conditions along the south shoreline of the Albany Neck. Consistent with the Eastshore park project’s cultural resource guidelines, the practice and products associated with unauthorized artistic expression (e.g., installations, structures, paintings, etc.) on the Albany Bulb will be reviewed in accordance with State Guideline A-21 Parks’ systemwide cultural resource procedures prior to their removal. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan
Facilities such as parking that do not depend on water will be located in areas that are screened from view, when practical. City of Albany General Plan The positive elements of Albany’s physical character, common architectural styles, significant views, and remaining natural features Goal LU 9 should be protected and enhanced. MAINTENANCE Eastshore State Park General Plan As specific projects are planned and implemented, develop and implement programs to remove invasive plant species to the extent possible, giving priority to the most noxious weeds. The Resource Inventory (CDPR 2002b) provides additional information about key invasive species (e.g., French broom, pampas grass, false bamboo, Kikuyu grass, fennel, yellow star-thistle, purple star-th istle, Guideline PLANTS-2 cardoon artichoke thistle, spurge, etc.) and their known locations in the park.
Guideline PLANTS-3 After removing invasive, exotic plant species, the affected areas generally should be re-vegetated with locally native plant sp ecies.
Guideline PLANTS-9 Provide long-term management to ensure the persistence and health of native plant communities. Disturbance to wildlife will be minimized by restricting access by people and dogs to sensitive wetland and upland habitat areas. Marsh birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and other water birds are vulnerable to disturbance when people and dogs are allowed too close Guideline WILDLIF -11 to important nesting, feeding, or roosting areas. Park visitors and dogs can also disrupt nesting activities of raptors and oth er birds in
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-18 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCEACCESSSS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARKPARK,, CALIFORNIAC, CALIFORNIA
Guideline, Goal, Policy Number Guideline, Goal, Policy Language upland areas. Trails and other facilities should be sited to maintain appropriate distances from sensitive areas. Signs should be posted restricting access to sensitive habitat areas. Fencing and vegetative buffers can be used between trails and sensitive habitat areas, as necessary to minimize disturbance of wildlife. Dogs can be prohibited from sensitive habitat areas or restricted to access while on leash. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan Recreation/Staging Units contain primary recreational development and parking/staging facilities, such as restrooms, public safety and maintenance service facilities, research facilities, signage, kiosks, interpretive facilities, picnic areas, turfed meadows, food concessions, camping facilities, equestrian facilities, archery and other regional, non-profit recreational facilities, and other appropriate regional recreational facilities. Shoreline or water-oriented parks may include beaches, bath houses, fishing piers, boat launches, marinas, and services related to boating, fishing, and swimming. City of Albany General Plan
Goal CROS 4 Strive to maintain and improve the quality of Albany’s natural environment and cultural resources, and natural resources in general. Develop a comprehensive water conservation policy for City facilities and new development, including requirements for drought- resistant landscaping, water-conserving fixtures, and continue to support EBMUD public information campaigns to reduce water Guideline CROS 4.6 consumption.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Final Draft JAN 2011\Conditions_Report_Final.doc (01/10/11) A-19 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATSTATEE PARK, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX B TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION LEVEL OF SERVICE OUTPUT REPORT AM Mon May 3, 2010 16:29:59 Page 3-1 ------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 I-580 SB Ramps/Buchanan Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.503 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.3 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------|------||------||------||------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 422 242 8 0 14 2 639 21 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 422 242 8 0 14 2 639 21 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 463 266 9 0 15 2 701 23 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 463 266 9 0 15 2 701 23 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 463 266 9 0 15 2 701 23 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.46 0.52 0.02 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 2504 902 30 0 3541 1771 3444 1722 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.41 0.41 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.14 0.50 0.03 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 12.1 12.1 0.0 49.4 49.2 22.2 17.9 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 11.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 12.4 12.4 0.0 60.5 49.7 22.5 17.9 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 12.4 12.4 0.0 60.5 49.7 22.5 17.9 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A B B B A E D C B A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 5 9 9 0 1 0 9 0 0 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA AM Mon May 3, 2010 16:29:59 Page 4-1 ------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 I-580 NB Ramps/Buchanan Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.769 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.1 Optimal Cycle: 99 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------|------||------||------||------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 21 6 423 0 0 0 15 421 0 0 639 609 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 21 6 423 0 0 0 15 421 0 0 639 609 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 21 6 433 0 0 0 15 431 0 0 654 623 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 6 433 0 0 0 15 431 0 0 654 623 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 21 6 433 0 0 0 15 431 0 0 654 623 ------|------||------||------||------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 1.56 0.44 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.98 Final Sat.: 2935 839 1615 0 0 0 1805 3610 0 0 1713 1633 ------|------||------||------||------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.02 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 Uniform Del: 21.4 21.4 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 40.5 0.0 0.0 20.5 20.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 21.4 21.4 35.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.1 46.9 0.0 0.0 22.8 22.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.4 21.4 35.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.1 46.9 0.0 0.0 22.8 22.8 LOS by Move: C C D A A A D D A A C C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 18 18 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA PM Mon May 3, 2010 16:30:56 Page 3-1 ------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 I-580 SB Ramps/Buchanan Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.309 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.9 Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------|------||------||------||------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 458 16 7 0 53 5 382 31 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 458 16 7 0 53 5 382 31 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 504 18 8 0 58 6 421 34 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 504 18 8 0 58 6 421 34 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 504 18 8 0 58 6 421 34 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 0.06 0.03 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3102 103 45 0 3563 1782 3451 1726 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.06 0.31 0.05 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.1 12.1 0.0 45.6 45.0 20.9 18.7 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.2 12.2 0.0 46.4 45.0 21.0 18.7 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.2 12.2 0.0 46.4 45.0 21.0 18.7 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A B B B A D D C B A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 4 5 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA PM Mon May 3, 2010 16:30:56 Page 4-1 ------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 I-580 NB Ramps/Buchanan Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.078 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 75.8 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------|------||------||------||------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 13 23 599 0 0 0 24 484 0 0 356 683 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 13 23 599 0 0 0 24 484 0 0 356 683 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 15 27 698 0 0 0 28 564 0 0 415 796 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 15 27 698 0 0 0 28 564 0 0 415 796 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 15 27 698 0 0 0 28 564 0 0 415 796 ------|------||------||------||------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1894 1894 1615 0 0 0 1805 3610 0 0 1626 1626 ------|------||------||------||------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.04 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.56 1.08 Uniform Del: 18.1 18.2 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 42.8 0.0 0.0 20.0 27.3 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 50.5 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 18.1 18.2 88.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3 105 0.0 0.0 20.3 77.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 18.1 18.2 88.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3 105 0.0 0.0 20.3 77.8 LOS by Move: B B F A A A D F A A C E HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 32 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 10 38 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA AM Mon May 3, 2010 17:35:26 Page 3-1 ------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 I-580 SB Ramps/Buchanan Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.517 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 18.5 Optimal Cycle: 47 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------|------||------||------||------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 422 242 8 0 14 2 639 21 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 422 242 8 0 14 2 639 21 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proj Trips: 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 24 10 0 24 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 422 242 19 0 38 12 639 45 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 463 266 21 0 42 13 701 49 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 463 266 21 0 42 13 701 49 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 463 266 21 0 42 13 701 49 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.51 0.04 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 2484 880 69 0 3480 1740 3448 1724 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.03 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.33 0.52 0.07 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 12.4 12.4 0.0 48.3 48.1 23.1 18.9 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 4.4 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 12.8 12.8 0.0 52.7 49.2 23.4 18.9 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 12.8 12.8 0.0 52.7 49.2 23.4 18.9 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A B B B A D D C B A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 5 10 10 0 1 1 9 1 0 ********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA AM Mon May 3, 2010 17:35:26 Page 4-1 ------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 I-580 NB Ramps/Buchanan Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.778 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.6 Optimal Cycle: 103 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------|------||------||------||------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 21 6 423 0 0 0 15 421 0 0 639 609 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 21 6 423 0 0 0 15 421 0 0 639 609 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proj Trips: 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 7 0 7 0 Initial Fut: 38 6 423 0 0 0 15 438 7 0 646 609 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 39 6 433 0 0 0 15 448 7 0 661 623 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 6 433 0 0 0 15 448 7 0 661 623 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 6 433 0 0 0 15 448 7 0 661 623 ------|------||------||------||------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 1.73 0.27 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.97 0.03 0.00 1.03 0.97 Final Sat.: 3242 512 1615 0 0 0 1805 3546 57 0 1723 1624 ------|------||------||------||------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.38 0.38 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.49 0.49 Volume/Cap: 0.03 0.03 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.78 Uniform Del: 21.7 21.7 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.4 40.2 40.2 0.0 20.8 20.8 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.6 6.6 0.0 2.4 2.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 21.8 21.8 36.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.5 46.7 46.7 0.0 23.3 23.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.8 21.8 36.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.5 46.7 46.7 0.0 23.3 23.3 LOS by Move: C C D A A A D D D A C C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 19 19 ********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA PM Mon May 3, 2010 17:36:05 Page 3-1 ------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 I-580 SB Ramps/Buchanan Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.335 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.6 Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------|------||------||------||------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 458 16 7 0 53 5 382 31 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 458 16 7 0 53 5 382 31 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proj Trips: 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 51 17 0 49 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 458 16 23 0 104 22 382 80 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 504 18 25 0 115 24 421 88 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 504 18 25 0 115 24 421 88 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 504 18 25 0 115 24 421 88 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 0.06 0.09 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3016 97 140 0 3516 1758 3466 1733 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.14 0.34 0.14 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 12.9 12.9 0.0 42.1 41.3 23.2 21.5 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 13.0 13.0 0.0 42.6 41.4 23.3 21.5 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 13.0 13.0 0.0 42.6 41.4 23.3 21.5 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A B B B A D D C C A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 2 1 5 2 0 ********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA PM Mon May 3, 2010 17:36:05 Page 4-1 ------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 I-580 NB Ramps/Buchanan Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.087 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 77.3 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------|------||------||------||------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------|------||------||------||------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 13 23 599 0 0 0 24 484 0 0 356 683 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 13 23 599 0 0 0 24 484 0 0 356 683 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proj Trips: 16 0 0 0 0 0 17 34 0 0 33 0 Initial Fut: 29 23 599 0 0 0 41 518 0 0 389 683 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 34 27 698 0 0 0 48 604 0 0 453 796 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 34 27 698 0 0 0 48 604 0 0 453 796 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 34 27 698 0 0 0 48 604 0 0 453 796 ------|------||------||------||------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 Lanes: 1.12 0.88 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2104 1669 1615 0 0 0 1805 3610 0 0 1632 1632 ------|------||------||------||------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Volume/Cap: 0.04 0.04 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.62 1.09 Uniform Del: 18.4 18.4 30.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.8 42.3 0.0 0.0 21.0 27.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 61.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 64.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 53.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 18.5 18.5 91.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 106 0.0 0.0 21.6 81.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 18.5 18.5 91.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 106 0.0 0.0 21.6 81.2 LOS by Move: B B F A A A D F A A C F HCM2kAvgQ: 1 1 33 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 12 39 ********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATSTATEE PARK, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX C TRAFFIC COUNT DATA All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 ALBANY File Name : 10-7133-001 SB I580-BUCHANAN Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 4/14/2010 Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Unshifted SB I580 OFF RAMP BUCHANAN ST. SB I580 ON RAMP BUCHANAN ST. Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 37 8 0 45 108 7 0 115 000 0030 3163 07:15 65 25 0 90 127 3 0 130 000 0030 3223 07:30 95 47 1 143 127 2 0 129 000 0030 3275 07:45 120 65 5 190 130 1 0 131 000 0040 4325 Total 317 145 6 468 492 13 0 505 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 986
08:00 76 54 1 131 169 5 0 174 000 0041 5310 08:15 101 70 2 173 159 7 0 166 000 0031 4343 08:30 125 53 0 178 181 8 0 189 000 0030 3370 08:45 101 24 0 125 144 5 0 149 000 0033 6280 Total 403 201 3 607 653 25 0 678 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 18 1303
16:00 72 3 1 76 109 7 0 116 000 0050 5197 16:15 89 3 4 96 95 4 0 99 000 0061 7202 16:30 96 4 1 101 93 13 0 106 000 0080 8215 16:45 105 4 1 110 98 9 0 107 000 00184 22 239 Total 362 14 7 383 395 33 0 428 0 0 0 0 0 37 5 42 853
17:00 108 5 4 117 101 2 0 103 000 00151 16 236 17:15 149 3 1 153 90 7 0 97 000 00120 12 262 17:30 96 3 1 100 74 5 0 79 000 00113 14 193 17:45 111 8 0 119 81 9 0 90 000 0062 8217 Total 464 19 6 489 346 23 0 369 0 0 0 0 0 44 6 50 908
Grand Total 1546 379 22 1947 1886 94 0 1980 000 00 107 16 123 4050 Apprch % 79.4 19.5 1.1 95.3 4.7 0 000 08713 Total % 38.2 9.4 0.5 48.1 46.6 2.3 0 48.9 000 002.60.43
SB I580 OFF RAMP BUCHANAN ST. SB I580 ON RAMP BUCHANAN ST. Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 120 65 5 190 130 1 0 131 000 00 4 04325 08:00 76 54 1 131 169 5 0 174 000 00415310 08:15 101 70 2 173 159 7 0 166 000 0031 4343 08:30 125 53 0 178 181 8 0 189 000 0030 3370 Total Volume 422 242 8 672 639 21 0 660 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 16 1348 PHF .844 .864 .400 .884 .883 .656 .000 .873 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .875 .500 .800 .911
SB I580 OFF RAMP Out In Total 0 672 672
8 242 422 Right Thru Left
Peak Hour Data Out 3 6 1096 660 436 Right 0 BUCHANANST. Total
Left North 0 Thru In 14 In Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 21 Thru Left 2 Unshifted 639 Total 29 16 45 BUCHANAN ST. Right Out
Left Thru Right 0 0 0
883 0 883 Out In Total SB I580 ON RAMP
Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:30 16:30 96 4 1 101 93 13 0 106 000 0080 8215 16:45 105 4 1 110 98 9 0 107 000 00 18 4 22 239 17:00 108 54117 101 2 0 103 000 00151 16 236 17:15 149 31153 90 7 0 97 000 00120 12 262 Total Volume 458 16 7 481 382 31 0 413 0 0 0 0 0 53 5 58 952 % App. Total 95.2 3.3 1.5 92.5 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 91.4 8.6 PHF .768 .800 .438 .786 .946 .596 .000 .965 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .736 .313 .659 .908 All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 ALBANY File Name : 10-7133-001 SB I580-BUCHANAN Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 4/14/2010 Page No : 3
SB I580 OFF RAMP Out In Total 0 481 481
7 16 458 Right Thru Left
Peak Hour Data Out 1 1 924 413 511 Right 0 BUCHANANST. Total 0 Left North Thru In 53 In Peak Hour Begins at 16:30 31 Thru Left 5 Unshifted 382 Total 38 58 96 BUCHANAN ST. Right Out
Left Thru Right 0 0 0
403 0 403 Out In Total SB I580 ON RAMP All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 ALBANY File Name : 10-7133-002 NB I580-BUCHANAN Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 4/14/2010 Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Unshifted NB I580 ON RAMP BUCHANAN ST. NB I580 OFF RAMP BUCHANAN ST. Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 000 00 113 72 185 2 1 48 51 2380 40 276 07:15 000 00 129 93 222 1 2 69 72 3650 68 362 07:30 000 00 129 124 253 0 3 85 88 2960 98 439 07:45 000 00 130 139 269 1 1 151 153 4 120 0 124 546 Total 0 0 0 0 0 501 428 929 4 7 353 364 11 319 0 330 1623
08:00 000 00 166 160 326 8 2 95 105 3770 80 511 08:15 000 00 161 177 338 5 1 86 92 3 101 0 104 534 08:30 000 00 182 133 315 7 2 91 100 5 123 0 128 543 08:45 000 00 147 152 299 2 2 119 123 6 98 0 104 526 Total 0 0 0 0 0 656 622 1278 22 7 391 420 17 399 0 416 2114
16:00 000 00 111 147 258 5 3 117 125 1760 77 460 16:15 000 00 95 196 291 4 9 108 121 2930 95 507 16:30 000 00 99 175 274 7 4 109 120 7 97 0 104 498 16:45 000 00 106 156 262 1 6 99 106 14 109 0 123 491 Total 0 0 0 0 0 411 674 1085 17 22 433 472 24 375 0 399 1956
17:00 000 00 99 192 291 4 7 126 137 8 115 0 123 551 17:15 000 00 94 193 287 3 7 178 188 5 156 0 161 636 17:30 000 00 77 146 223 2 7 146 155 6 101 0 107 485 17:45 000 00 86 152 238 4 2 149 155 5 112 0 117 510 Total 0 0 0 0 0 356 683 1039 13 23 599 635 24 484 0 508 2182
Grand Total 000 00 1924 2407 4331 56 59 1776 1891 76 1577 0 1653 7875 Apprch % 000 0 44.4 55.6 3 3.1 93.9 4.6 95.4 0 Total % 000 00 24.4 30.6 55 0.7 0.7 22.6 24 1200 21
NB I580 ON RAMP BUCHANAN ST. NB I580 OFF RAMP BUCHANAN ST. Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 000 00 130 139 269 11151 153 4 120 0 124 546 08:00 000 00 166 160 326 8295 105 3770 80 511 08:15 000 00 161 177 338 5 1 86 92 3 101 0 104 534 08:30 000 00 182 133 315 7 2 91 100 5 123 0 128 543 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 639 609 1248 21 6 423 450 15 421 0 436 2134 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .878 .860 .923 .656 .750 .700 .735 .750 .856 .000 .852 .977
NB I580 ON RAMP Out In Total 630 0 630
0 0 0 Right Thru Left
Peak Hour Data Out 4 282092 1248 844 Right BUCHANANST. Total 609 15
Left North Thru In 639 In
421 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Thru Left 0 Unshifted Total BUCHANAN ST. 0 660 436 1096 Right Out
Left Thru Right 21 6 423
0 450 450 Out In Total NB I580 OFF RAMP
Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:00 000 00 99 192 291 47126 137 8 115 0 123 551 17:15 000 0094193 287 37178 188 5 156 0 161 636 17:30 000 00 77 146 223 2 7 146 155 6 101 0 107 485 17:45 000 00 86 152 238 4 2 149 155 5 112 0 117 510 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 356 683 1039 13 23 599 635 24 484 0 508 2182 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 34.3 65.7 2 3.6 94.3 4.7 95.3 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .899 .885 .893 .813 .821 .841 .844 .750 .776 .000 .789 .858 All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 ALBANY File Name : 10-7133-002 NB I580-BUCHANAN Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 4/14/2010 Page No : 3
NB I580 ON RAMP Out In Total 730 0 730
0 0 0 Right Thru Left
Peak Hour Data 0313 2122 1039 1083 Out Right BUCHANANST. Total 683 24
Left North Thru In 356 In
484 Peak Hour Begins at 17:00 Thru Left 0 Unshifted Total BUCHANAN ST. 0 369 508 877 Right Out
Left Thru Right 13 23 599
0 635 635 Out In Total NB I580 OFF RAMP Prepared by NDS/ATD
Volumes for: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 City: Albany Project #: 10-7127-001 Location: Buchannan Street west of I-80 ramps Start Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 0 13 0 10 12:15 0 10 0 12 12:30 0 5 0 15 12:45 0 4 0 32 0 13 0 50 0 82 1:00 0 11 0 11 1:15 0 10 0 5 1:30 0 13 0 13 1:45 0 5 0 3907036075 2:00 0 5 0 4 2:15 0 8 0 6 2:30 0 3 0 7 2:45 0 11 0 27 0 14 0 31 0 58 3:00 0 20 0 8 3:15 0 11 0 9 3:30 0 6 0 10 3:45 0 9 0 4608035081 4:00 0 11 0 13 4:15 0 6 0 17 4:30 0 10 0 14 4:45 0 6 0 3307051084 5:00 0 12 0 14 5:15 0 11 0 4 5:30 0 7 0 11 5:45 1 5 1 35 1 15 1 44 2 79 6:00 2 8 2 10 6:15 1 6 0 13 6:30 0 7 2 12 6:45 4 9 7 30 4 11 8 46 15 76 7:00 2 12 5 10 7:15 2 13 4 9 7:30 2 4 8 1 7:45 4 14 10 43 7 1 24 21 34 64 8:00 3 7 4 4 8:15 4 3 5 2 8:30 5 12 14 1 8:45 7 11 19 33 9 0 32 7 51 40 9:00 5 0 9 2 9:15 6 5 12 0 9:30 4 2 4 0 9:45 4 0 19730282479 10:00 6 0 11 0 10:15 10 0 11 0 10:30 4 0 4 0 10:45 5 1 25 1 11 0 37 0 62 1 11:00 9 2 9 0 11:15 8 0 9 0 11:30 6 0 9 0 11:45 12 0 35 2 23 0 50 0 85 2 Total 116 328 116 328 180 323 180 323 296 651 Combined 444 444 503 503 947 Total AM Peak 11:30 AM 11:45 AM Vol. 41 60 P.H.F. 0.788 0.652 PM Peak 2:45 PM 3:45 PM Vol. 48 52 P.H.F. 0.600 0.765
Percentage 26.1% 73.9% 35.8% 64.2% R
!JRQ` 1IV %H.:J:J *J%H.:J:J Q` .1V. /Q`JV` 77 77 77 77 77
77 77 77 77 77 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATSTATEE PARK, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX D PHASE II SITE ASSESSMENT, FLEMING POINT PROPERTY
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATSTATEE PARK, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX E COMPARISON OF SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE OBSERVATIONS
Global sea level has risen approximately 120 m (400 ft) since the last glacial maximum some 18,000 years ago (Fairbanks 1989). In the last 6,000 years, the rate of sea level rise slowed from an average rate of about 50 mm (2 in) per century over the last 6,000 years, to 10 to 20 mm (0.4 to 0.8 in) per century over the last 3,000 years (Church et al, 2001).
Tide gauge data from the 20th century, indicates the present rate of global average sea level rise has been between 10 and 20 cm (4 and 8 in) per century. The few very long tide gauge records indicate that the rate of sea level rise was less in the 19th century. It is very likely that 20th century warming caused by anthropogenic impacts has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise. Modeling studies indicate that both the thermal expansion of sea water and as well as widespread loss of land ice have increased sea level from 1910 to 1990 by between 3 and 8 cm (1.2 and 3.1 in) per century (Church et al, 2001).
COMPONENTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE
Sea level rise is generally split into two terms – a global term that is controlled by global processes, such as the warming of the oceans and the melting of ice; and a local term that is controlled by local or regional processes, such as local winds and land movements. Local sea level rise is also referred to as relative sea level rise as it combines changes in the both the sea and land elevations.
Global, or eustatic, sea level rise is the combination of two factors:
1. Thermal expansion of the ocean. Thermal expansion is the result of higher water temperatures leading to an increase in ocean volume while the mass remains constant. Over the past 50 years the oceans have absorbed about 80% of the heating associated with greenhouse gases. Observations suggest an average sea level rise of about 10 cm (3.9 in) per century can be attributed to thermal expansion component over recent decades (Cayan et al, 2006). The rate of thermal expansion will increase as global temperature increases and will continue for about 1,000 years after atmospheric temperature stabilizes, due to the slow circulation of the deep ocean (Mote et al, 2008).
2. Melting of global ice. The melting of glaciers and land grounded ice caps, such as Antarctica and Greenland, will increase the mass of water in the oceans leading to sea level rise. Observations of glaciers and ice caps suggest an average contribution to sea level rise of 2 to 4 cm (0.8 to 1.6in) per century over the last century. However, several independent measurements of Greenland and Antarctic mass balance using lasers and gravity measurements indicate that both Greenland and Antarctica have recently (2002- 2006) been substantial contributors to global sea level rise (Mote et al, 2008).
3
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Text v1.doc
05/21/10 Local sea level rise is a combination of global sea level rise together with three local factors:
1. Local atmospheric circulation. Atmospheric factors can affect regional sea levels. Wind- driven enhancement of sea level can occur on the Pacific coast due to the northward ocean currents and due to very long wavelength waves propagating up form the equator during El Nino events (Mote et al, 2008). Combined with Coriolis effects due to the Earth’s rotation, they push ocean water toward the shore. Other phenomena associated with the El-Nino-Southern Oscillation, such as the frequency and magnitude of storms and storm surges, may be also be altered by climate change.
2. Vertical land movement. Relative sea level rise is the sum of global sea level rise and the change in vertical land movement (BCDC, 1987). Thus, if sea level rises and the shoreline rises or subsides, the relative rise in sea level could be lesser or greater than the global sea level rise. Vertical land movement can occur due to tectonics (earthquakes, regional subsidence or uplift), sediment compaction, isostatic readjustment and groundwater depletion (USACE, 2009). As rates of global sea level continue to increase with climate change, at some point, the rate of vertical land movement will become less significant in determining the impact of sea level rise. However, areas that have subsided are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and extreme events.
COMPARISON OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS
There have been a number of recent projections of sea level rise. Each of these projections has made different assumptions in relation to the four components of sea level described above. It is important to understand these assumptions and the context in which the predictions were made.
IPCC (2007)
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report (AR4) provided projections of global sea level rise for six different emission scenarios (Table E.1 and Figure E.1). These included high emissions scenarios (such as A1F1 and A2) which represented a future in which economic growth is uneven and the income gap remains large between now-industrialized and developing parts of the world. In contrast, low emissions scenarios (such as B1) represented a future with a high level of environmental and social consciousness, combined with a globally coherent approach to a more sustainable development.
Each of the emission scenarios was modeled using a number of global climate models to give projected temperature and sea level rise changes. The use of multiple models reflects the uncertainty in the climate responses by greenhouse gases and other forcings and the variability amongst models in representing and calculating key processes. The results for each emission scenario were then assembled to provide an envelope of likely projections together with a mean projection.
4
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Text v1.doc
05/21/10 Low Emission High Emission Component B1 A2 2100 2100
Thermal expansion 17 cm (6.7 in) 24.5 cm (9.6 in)
Ice sheet contributions 10.5 cm (4.1 in) 12 cm (4.7 in)
Greenland ice sheet 3 cm (1.2 in) 4.5 cm (1.8 in)
Antarctic ice sheet -6 cm (-2.4 in) -7.5 cm (-3.0 in)
28 cm (11 in) 37 cm (14.6 in) Total global sea level rise r 10 cm r 14 cm Table E.1. Low and high emission global sea level rise from Table 10.7 IPCC (2007).
The projections provided by AR4 are of global sea level rise and do not reflect local atmospheric circulation or tectonic movements. The projections range from ranging from 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 in) for the lowest emissions scenarios to 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 in) for the higher emissions scenarios.
Subsequent research has led to a reevaluation of the AR4 sea level rise projections which are now thought to be too low, and the approach used to derive the projections has been questioned. The projections were driven mostly by the thermal expansion component and excluded the significant contributions from the accelerated future melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The uncertainty in modeling how ice moves in large, land-based ice sheets led to the exclusion of this component and for the IPCC to state that it did
“not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise” (IPCC 2007).
The upper end of the AR4 projection is not an upper limit and it probably underestimates future sea level rise (Rahmstorf 2007; Jevrejeva et al 2008). Other recent publications report different global sea level rise projections to those reported AR4. For instance, Rahmstorf (2007) used a linear empirical relationship which resulted in higher global mean surface temperature and rates of sea level rise to predict sea level rise increases of 50 to 140 cm (19 to 55 in) by 2100.
Cayan et al (2008)
Cayan et al (2008) considered these higher estimates of global sea level rise in their study of sea level rise in the coastal waters of California. They defined two projections which bookended the
5
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Text v1.doc
05/21/10 range of likely global sea level rise, referring to these as “low” and “high”. This used the A2 (high emission) and B1 (low emission) scenarios and Rahmstorf’s methodology to project global sea level rise in 2100 (Table E.2). These projections were also adjusted to include the effects of dams on sea level rise which may have stored enough water worldwide to mask acceleration in the rate of sea level rise prior to 1993.
Low Emission High Emission Component B1 A2 2100 2100
AR4 projection 28 cm (11 in) 37 cm (14.6 in)
Adjustments for ice sheet 22 cm (8.7 in) 103 cm (40.5) loss and dam storage
Total global sea level rise 50 cm (19.7 in) 140 cm (55.1 in)
Table E.2. Low and high emission global sea level rise from Cayan et al (2008).
Both sets of global sea level rise projections (AR4 and Cayan et al) use a series of scenarios to bracket likely future greenhouse gas emissions. The latter study brings added sophistication, incorporating additional components such as enhanced ice sheet loss and dam storage. However the general trend is for projections of sea level rise to increase as the processes become better understood (Figure E.2). Perhaps even more noteworthy is that the estimated emissions growth for the period 2000 to 2007 was above even the most fossil fuel intensive scenario of AR4 (Science Daily 2008).
Comparison With USACE Circular
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued circular EC 1165-2-211 in July 2009 which provides guidance for the incorporation of direct and indirect physical effects of projected future sea level rise (USACE, 2009). Planning studies and engineering designs should evaluate alternatives against a range of local sea level rise projections which are defined by “low”, “intermediate” and “high” rates of local sea level rise.
The “low” local sea level rise projection is the historic sea level trend as observed at a long-term gauge. A minimum of 40 years of data is considered necessary to justify extrapolating into the future and use as a baseline for projecting future sea levels. This “low” projection is atypical of sea level rise projections as it does not consider future emission scenarios, unlike AR4 and Cayan et al (2008) discussed above. Maintenance of the historic sea level rise rates into the future is unlikely given the overwhelming evidence of accelerated sea level rise in the future. The “low” projection serves more a baseline against which to compare the more reasonable estimates of accelerated sea level rise given by the “intermediate” and “high” projections.
6
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Text v1.doc
05/21/10 The “intermediate” global sea level rise projection is based on the average of the central values from the six scenarios used in AR4. Rather than use the AR4 values, the USACE circular suggests using curves developed in the 1987 National Research Council study Responding to Changes in Sea Level (NRC, 1987). This study used a series of three sea level curves (NRC-I, II and III) that bracketed the then estimates of sea level rise by 2100. These same curves have been used in the USACE circular but modified to reflect the increase in the present rate of global sea level rise to 1.7 mm per year. Rather than reflect a particular emission scenario, the curves (modified NRC-I, II and III) are set equally across the range of then modeled predictions to reflect sea level rises of 50 cm (19.6 in), 100 cm (39.4 in) and 150 cm (59 in) (Figure E.3). The AR4 projections for 2100 bracket the modified NRC-I curve and the guidance is to use NRC-I for the “intermediate” global sea level rise projections for 2100, a value of 50 cm (19.6 in).
In a similar vein to Cayan et al (2008), the USACE “high” global sea level rise projection takes account of increased ice sheet loss beyond the projections of AR4. Modified NRC-III curve is used to give a sea level rise of 150 cm (59 in) by 2100 (Figure E.3). The rationale provided for the use of the curve is that:
“This ‘high’ rate exceeds the upper bounds of IPCC estimates from both 2001 and 2007 to accommodate for the potential rapid loss of ice from Antarctica and Greenland.” (USACE, 2009)
Table E.3 shows that NRC-III does give values close to that of Rahmstorf (2007) and Cayan et al (2008).
“low” “intermediate” “high” Component 2100 2100 2100
AR4 projection 18 cm (7.1 in) 34 cm (13.4 in) 59 cm (23.2 in)
Cayan et al (2008) 50 cm (19.7 in) 150 cm (59 in)
USACE (2009) historic 34 cm (13.4 in) 93 cm (36.6 in)
Table E.3. Projections of global sea level rise from IPCC (2007), Cayan et al (2008) and USACE (2009). The terms “low”, “intermediate” and “high” are used differently in each study, in some cases it reflects the emissions scenario, in other cases it brackets a possible range.
BCDC (1987) and USACE (2009) provides guidance on how to calculate local vertical land movement from historic sea level observations so that local sea level rise estimates may be incorporated into the “intermediate” and “high” projections.
7
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Text v1.doc
05/21/10 REFERENCES
BCDC (1987). Future Sea Level Rise: Predications and Implications for San Francisco Bay. Prepared for San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission by Moffatt and Nichol and Wetland Research Associates.
Cayan, D., et al. 2008. Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. A report from the California Climate Change Center, sponsored by the California Energy Commission and the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Church J. A., J. M. Gregory, P. Huybrechts, M. Kuhn, K. Lambeck, M. T. Nhuan, D. Qin, and P. L. Woodworth, 2001: “Changes in Sea Level”. Chapter 11 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 639–694.
Fairbanks, R. G., 1989: “A 17,000-year Glacio-eustatic Sea Level Record: Influence of Glacial Melting Rates on the Younger Dryas Event and Deep-Ocean Circulation.” Nature vol 342: no 6250, pp 637–642.
IPCC, 2007. Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao, 2007: Global Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth. 2008. Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? Geophysical Research Letters 35:8715.
Mote, P., A. Peterson, S. Reeder, H. Shipman, L. Whitely Binder, 2008. Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State. University of Washington Climate Impacts Group and the Department of Ecology.
NRC, 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications. National Research Council. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
Rahmstorf, S., 2007. A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea Level Rise. Science, vol. 315. pp 368-370.
Science Daily. 2008. “Global Carbon Emissions Speed Up, Beyond IPCC projections.” September 28, 2008. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925072440.htm.
8
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Text v1.doc
05/21/10 USACE, 2009. Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs. US Army Corps of Engineers, EC 1165-2-211.
9
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Text v1.doc
05/21/10 Source: IPCC (2007). figure E.1 Projections and uncertainties (5% to 95% ranges) of Albany Beach global average sea level rise and its components in 2090 to 2099 (relative to 1980 to 1999) for the six emission Projections of Global Sea Level Rise scenarios PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Figs v1.doc Source: Pew (2009) figure E.2 Albany Beach Recent Estimates of Sea Level Rise
PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Figs v1.doc Source: USACE (2009) figure E.3 Albany Beach National Research Council (1987) Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios
PWA Ref# 2009.00
J:\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\SLR Appx\Albany Beach SLR Appx Figs v1.doc LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATSTATEE PARK, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX F WAVE98 DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX DESCRIBING WIND WAVE GENERATION ANALYSIS
This appendix describes the technical approach used by Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd. (PWA) to calculate wind waves incident to the site. PWA used an in-house wind wave generation program called WAVE98. The program provides wind wave parameters based on input values that characterize the wind and the water body in the wave generation area.
The calculation methodology consists of methods that have been widely tested and are considered reliable for small water bodies like San Francisco Bay (FEMA, 2005; USACE, 2002; USACE, 1984). These methods are also suitable for preliminary analysis and planning studies where resources are not sufficient for more detailed analysis. More accurate analyses can be accomplished with higher-level computer models that represent the water body as a matrix of depths. These models are often called “two- dimensional” and more accurately characterize the wind wave generation area. This document describes the simplified methods which can be characterized as quasi-two-dimensional, composite fetch calculations using parametric equations.
The wind wave generation calculations follow guidance in the Shore Protection Manual (SPM; USACE, 1984) and the Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM:USACE, 2002): The SPM guidance is emphasized to allow consideration of shallow water effects in San Francisco Bay. The wave hind-cast procedure predicts wave heights for a fetch-limited condition, i.e. assuming winds of a given speed blow over water for a sufficient duration until the wave height is limited by fetch length and not by the duration of the wind.
The wind-wave hind-cast methodology uses the spectral contribution method (Seymour, 1977) to forecast wave height and period using the JONSWOP spectrum. The method uses a cosine-squared function to weight the spectral contribution from all the fetch directions of concern ( +/- 90o with respect to the primary fetch direction). The significant wave height and peak period are calculated based on wave energy within the composite spectrum.
Each of these key methods are described in more detail below.
\\Mars\Projects\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Wave98 Appx\Wave98_documentation.doc PARAMETRIC WIND WAVE GENERATION EQUATIONS
Procedures for estimating storm seas in sheltered waters have traditionally followed the USACE Shore Protection Manual (SPM, 1984), classified as Empirical Prediction Models herein. The SPM procedures are defined in Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section IV Estimation of Surface Winds for Wave Prediction; Section V Simplified Methods for Estimating Wave Conditions; and Section VI Wave Forecasting for Shallow Water. The heart of the procedures is the Sverdrup-Munk-Bretschneider (SMB) set of equations that relate wind speed, duration, and fetch to wind wave height and period. Modified equations are provided for shallow water (relative to wave length).
The WAVE 98 software includes both deep water and shallow water equations. Shallow water is described as depth less than one half the wave length. WAVE98 automatically selects the correct equations.
Wind is characterized as a speed averaged over a particular wind duration. Conceptually, wind is a time- varying parameter and the average speed decreases as the averaging period is lengthened. The wind field can therefore be considered as an array of wind speed – duration pairs, with faster speeds associated with shorter durations. For example, peak wind gusts are greater than speeds average over an hour. This concept is pertinent in small water bodies where the wind wave generation may be limited by the length of open water (fetch) the wind blows over. Areas with small fetches are analyzed as “fetch-limited” and short duration – high wind speeds are used to calculate the potential wind wave parameters.
To calculate fetch limited seas, the fastest wind speed with a long enough duration must be selected. Typically, this is accomplished by starting with a high wind speed, calculating the fetch-limited wave height, and checking that the duration-limited wave height is not smaller. If it is, then a slower wind with longer duration is tried. This iteration is repeated until the maximum fetch limited condition is established. A wind speed is typically selected based on extremal analysis, for example the 100-yr wind speed.
The SMB equations are provided below.
\\Mars\Projects\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Wave98 Appx\Wave98_documentation.doc Deep Water Equations:
H u 1001.3 FU 212 m0 A where H is the wave height in feet, UA is the wind speed in miles per hour, and F is the fetch length in m0 miles (Equation 3-33d on page 3-48 of SPM)
1 31 Tm u 1059.5 AFU where Tm is the period in seconds (Equation 3-34d on page 3-48 of SPM)
31 § F 2 · t 603.1 ¨ ¸ ©U A ¹ where t is the duration in hours (Equation 3-35d on page 3-48 of SPM)
Shallow Water Equations:
21 ½ § gF · ° 00565.0 ¨ ¸ ° ª 43 º ° ¨ 2 ¸ ° gH § gd · ° U A ° 283.0 tanh« 530.0 ¨ ¸ » tanh © ¹ 2 ¨ 2 ¸ ® 43 ¾ U A « ©U A ¹ » ° ª § gd · º ° ¬ ¼ tanh« 530.0 ¨ ¸ » ° ¨U 2 ¸ ° ¯° ¬« © A ¹ ¼» ¿° where g is the acceleration of gravity, H is the wave height, d is the water depth (Equation 3-39 on page 3-55 of SPM)
\\Mars\Projects\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Wave98 Appx\Wave98_documentation.doc 31 ½ § gF · ° 0379.0 ¨ ¸ ° ª 83 º ° ¨ 2 ¸ ° gT § gd · ° U A ° 54.7 tanh« 833.0 ¨ ¸ » tanh © ¹ ¨ 2 ¸ ® 83 ¾ U A « ©U A ¹ » ° ª § gd · º ° ¬ ¼ tanh« 833.0 ¨ ¸ » ° ¨U 2 ¸ ° ¯° ¬« © A ¹ ¼» ¿° where T is the wave period (Equation 3-40 on page 3-55 of SPM)
37 gt 2 § gT · u u 1037.5 ¨ ¸ U A ©U A ¹ (Equation 3-41 on page 3-66 of SPM)
CHARACTERIZATION OF WIND WAVE GENERATION AREA
Special procedures are often applied for water bodies (embayments) with irregular planforms like San Francisco Bay, which are not easily represented by a single fetch length. This is typically called a “restricted fetch” condition. Restricted fetch analysis is applied in cases where a straight line fetch may under predict wave height and or period, such as when there are multiple but divergent open fetch areas, or the primary wind direction is not aligned with the axis of a longer open water area. The most accurate way to consider restricted fetches is with the “composite fetch” method.
The composite fetch method applies the parametric wind wave equations to an array of fetches spread over the fetch area, and then combines the resulting wave conditions for each fetch using a weighting function (Seymour, 1977). The method described by Seymour (1977) uses a cosine squared directional distribution and the JONSWAP frequency spectrum. The methodology was found to give good results when compared to field data in San Diego Bay, California and English Bay, Vancouver, Canada. More recently, the method was also found to work well in Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay (PWA, 2002; PWA-FEMA, 2005). The primary advantage of the Composite Fetch method is that it allows a reasonable wave estimate for very irregular embayments, where large fetch areas exist off the primary wind direction.
\\Mars\Projects\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Wave98 Appx\Wave98_documentation.doc The fetch lengths are defined in a radial fan pattern, similar to that shown in Figure 1. In the hindcasting procedures the durations were increased so that fetch limited conditions were developed along each fetch. If there is a large range of fetch lengths, the shorter fetches may be fetch-limited while the longer fetches can be duration-limited. This procedure maximizes the wave height and period for a given wind condition. A water depth is assigned to each fetch based on available bathymetry and presumed tide range. Given the increase in wavelength with distance down wind, representative depths are selected by giving more weight to the depths closer to the project site. The characterization of fetches and wind are the main difference between the composite fetch and more detailed modeling applications.
SPECTRUM
A wave spectrum represents the distribution of wave energy across the range of wave periods: Spectra are also plotted relative to wave frequency (basically, the inverse of period) and wave length which is a direct function of period in deep water. Wave spectra can also include an extra dimension to represent the direction the waves are traveling from or to. In most cases, simplified representation of waves in terms of three parameters, height, period and direction, is adequate. Height is proportional to the area under the spectrum: Often the significant wave height is used, which is defined as the average of the highest 1/3 of the waves and approximated as a function of the spectral area. The period is often selected as that corresponding to the peak of the spectrum (called the peak period or peak spectral period). The direction is often provided in terms of the mean direction at the peak spectral period.
The WAVE98 program uses a parameterized frequency spectrum (called the JONSWOP) and a parameterized directional shape (called the cosine squared distribution), which are explained in many text books (Goda, 1985). Significant wave heights for individual fetch directions are first calculated using the SPM method. The JONSWAP method is then applied to determine the wave energy spectra, representative of each calculated wave height (for individual fetches).
\\Mars\Projects\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Wave98 Appx\Wave98_documentation.doc The JONSWAP spectrum is computed using the following parameters and equations:
Dg 2 fE exp a J b 2S 4 f 5
2S 4 Hf 2 mm 0 D 2 16 Ig 0
4 § fm · a 25.1 ¨ ¸ © f ¹
2 ª ff m º b exp« 22 » ¬ 2V fm ¼
-1 -1 where E is spectral energy, f is frequency (s ), fm is the frequency of the spectral peak (s ), and Į, ı, and Ȗ are coefficients either fit to an observed spectrum or calculated as functions of dimensionless fetch.
The final wave spectrum in a given direction is obtained by averaging energy contributions from all the relevant fetches ( r 90 o with respect to the primary fetch direction) to each frequency band, using a weighting function. The weighting function is the cosine-squared of the angle between the primary direction and the contributing fetch-direction (Figure 2). According to this weighting, highest weight is given to the primary direction and the weighting decreases as direction moves away from the primary direction. The significant wave height and the peak period for the primary direction were calculated from the resulting spectrum.
\\Mars\Projects\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Wave98 Appx\Wave98_documentation.doc REFERENCES:
Coastal Engineering Manual. 2003. Part 2, Chapter 2, Meteorology and Wave Climate. US Army Corps of Engineers, July 2003.
FEMA, 2004: Revised, January, 2005. Final Draft Guidelines for Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis and Mapping for the Pacific Coast of the United States, Draft Guidelines, FEMA Regions IX, X, and FEMA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/frm_cfham.shtm
Goda Y., 1985. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, Japan.
Seymour, R. J., (1977). Estimating Wave Generation on Restricted Fetches. Journal of the Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Division. pp.251-264.
US Army Corps of Engineers. (2001). Coastal Engineering Manual. Part 11. Chapter 4. p.11-4-11.
US Army Corps of Engineers, (1984). Shore Protection Manual. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
\\Mars\Projects\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Wave98 Appx\Wave98_documentation.doc \\Mars\Projects\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Wave98 Appx\Wave98_documentation.doc Figure 2: Wave Spectra directional distribution (Goda, 1985).
\\Mars\Projects\2009_AlbanyBeachFeasibility\Task 2 - Existing and Future Conditions\Report\Wave98 Appx\Wave98_documentation.doc LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATSTATEE PARK, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX G ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED BY LSA MARCH 26, 2010 ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED BY LSA ON OR IN THE VICINITY OF THE ALBANY BEACH PROJECT SITE, ALAMEDA COUNTY
LSA biologists observed or detected the sign (e.g., tracks, scat, nests, burrows etc.) of the following vertebrate animal (wildlife) species on the Albany Beach Project Site, March 26, 2010.
Presumed Seasonal Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence/Nesting Codesi Reptiles Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis R Birds Canada goose Branta canadensis R American wigeon Anas americana W Greater scaup Aythya marila W Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata W Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis W Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii W Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus R/T Great blue heron Ardea herodias R Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis R American coot Fulica americana R Black-belled plover Pluvialis squatarola W Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani R Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius W/T Willet Tringa semipalmata W/T Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa W/T Black turnstone Arenaria melanocephala W/T Sanderling Calidris alba W/T Western sandpiper Calidris mauri W/T Dunlin Calidris alpina W/T Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus W/T Western gull Larus occidentalis R Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri R Mourning dove Zenaida macroura R Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna R Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin S Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans R American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos R Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus R Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii R
04/23/10 (P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Wildlife\Animal List.doc) Presumed Seasonal Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence/Nesting Codesi Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus W Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos R European starling* Sturnus vulgaris R California towhee Pipilo crissalis R Song sparrow Melospiza melodia R/W White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys R/W Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla W Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus SW Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater S/T American goldfinch Spinus tristis R House sparrow Passer domesticus R Mammals California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi R Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae R i The codes refer to the species presumed seasonal occurrence on the site and probable breeding/nesting status (breeding was not confirmed in most cases).
R = Year-round resident: resident/expected to nest/breed in the project area or in the vicinity. S = Spring/summer resident: May nest in the project area or in the vicinity. T = Transient: May occur in the project area sporadically, but unlikely to nest or occur regularly. W = Winter visitor: Regularly present during winter; does not nest locally. * = Non-native species.
04/23/10 (P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Wildlife\Animal List.doc) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT JANUARY 2011 ALBANY BEACH RESTORATIONRESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATSTATEE PARK, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX H DELINEATION OF POTENTIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE ALBANY BEACH STUDY AREA DELINEATION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
ALBANY BEACH RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALBANY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for: East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605 (510) 544-2627
Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810
LSA Project No. EBR1001
July 20, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 1 Soils, Topography and Hydrology...... 1 Vegetation...... 2 METHODS ...... 3 RESULTS ...... 4 Section 404 ...... 4 Section 10 ...... 5 RAPANOS/SWANCC JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ANALYSIS...... 5 CONCLUSIONS...... 6 REFERENCES ...... 6
FIGURES (All figures are at the end of the report.)
Figure 1: Regional Location Figure 2: Study Area Location Figure 3: Potential Waters of the United States – Overview Figure 4: Potential Waters of the United States – Detail Figure 5: Section 10 Jurisdiction Figure 6: Site photographs
DATA SHEETS (Data sheets for sample points 1 through 5 are located after the Figures)
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Bio Resources\Wetlands\Albany Beach delineation 2010.doc (07/20/10) i INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a delineation by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) of the potential extent of waters of the United States, including wetlands, in the study area associated with the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study. Philip Williams & Associates (PWA) provided information on the site’s hydrology. Waters of the United States are subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The delineation also addresses the extent of Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
The East Bay Regional Park District (District) is overseeing a study to determine the feasibility of implementing improvements to public access and habitat at Albany Beach, a sub-zone of Eastshore State Park. The delineation study area is equivalent to the feasibility study area. The data and conclusions of this report are subject to confirmation by the Corps.
PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Albany Beach is located on the eastern San Francisco Bay shoreline in the City of Albany in northwestern Alameda County (Figure 1). The beach is bounded by Buchanan Street and the Albany Peninsula to the north, Golden Gate Fields race track to the east and south, and San Francisco Bay to the west (Figure 2). The study site is located within Township 1 North, Range 4 West, Section 33 of the Richmond, California, 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle, centered at approximately 37ᑻ53’21.67” N latitude and 122ᑻ18’58.81” W longitude (WGS84 datum). The site is accessible to cars via the western terminus of Buchanan Street off of Interstate 80 in the City of Albany.
The Albany Peninsula is a capped landfill with distinct topographic features known locally as – from west to east – the Bulb, the Neck and the Plateau. South of these features are Albany Beach and Fleming Point, a bedrock formation that prior to land filling was an island surrounded by tidal marsh and the bay. The study area is approximately 63 acres and encompasses portions of multiple parcels owned by various public and private entities: the State of California, East Bay Regional Park District, the City of Albany, and Magna Entertainment Corporation. Parcels adjacent to Albany Beach may be included in restoration and public access improvements or have the potential to be affected by such activities. The following parcel numbers are included in the study area: 066 267500200, 066 267500100, 066 267500302, 066 267500301, 066 267500303, and 066 26800304.
Soils, Topography and Hydrology All of the land in the study area (including Fleming Point) is mapped in the Alameda County soil survey (USDA 1981) as Urban land, a miscellaneous category for identifying land that is covered by buildings, roads, parking lots, and other urban structures. The soil material in this mapping unit is mainly heterogeneous fill and most areas mapped as Urban land are adjacent to San Francisco Bay. The most common substrates in the study area are asphalt/pavement, compacted fill with topsoil, sandy beach, and riprap or rock armoring.
The majority of the study area is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 6 feet above mean higher high water (MHHW) where the land meets the Bay, to 12 feet above MHHW on the dune mounds and up to 42 feet above MHHW on the south facing slope of the Neck. The study
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Bio Resources\Wetlands\Albany Beach delineation 2010.doc (07/20/10) 1 area includes part of San Francisco Bay, and the uplands in the area drain to San Francisco Bay (HUC 180500). San Francisco Bay is the primary hydrologic feature in the study area, exerting a strong influence on the biotic and abiotic characteristics of the Albany shoreline. Other hydrologic processes of importance to Albany Beach include climate regime, groundwater conditions and drainage.
Precipitation represents the primary climatic factor of hydrologic importance (PWA 2002). Precipitation falling directly on the uplands, including paved areas, fills local depressions and swales seasonally. Some of the rainfall percolates through the soil and sand and supports the local groundwater table (PWA 2002). A regional groundwater table exists, gradually conveying subsurface flows from the eastern extents of the study area to the Bay. The nearest storm drains are located far beyond on the study area on Buchanan Street at the junction with I-80. There are no creeks, sloughs or springs in the study area. The nearest blue line creek is Codornices Creek, which daylights near the junction of Buchanan Street and I-80.
Vegetation Terrestrial vegetation in the study area consists predominantly of ruderal vegetation and ornamental trees and shrubs. Ruderal refers to vegetation that occurs on disturbed land and is generally dominated by non-native weedy plant species. The vegetation types and plant species identified in the study area were characterized and named, to the greatest extent possible, according to A Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009).
At the northern portion of the study area, the Albany Neck is entirely vegetated by ruderal scrub, including a wide variety of ornamental species that may have been planted on the capped landfill. Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is the only native shrub species that is co-dominant with non- native trees and shrubs in this area. A few other native trees and shrubs occur on the slopes above the trails, including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Non-native trees and shrubs that are dominant in this part of the study area include blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), kangaroo thorn (Acacia paradoxa), French broom (Genista monspessulana), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), and pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.). Where trees and shrubs are not present, vegetation is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs, such as soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), black mustard (Brassica nigra), Italian thistle (Carduus pyncocephalus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae).
Ruderal vegetation also is the dominant vegetation/habitat type at the entrance point to the Albany Beach area from the parking lot at the western terminus of the Buchanan Street extension. Most of this area is open grassland characterized by annual species such as hare barley (Hordeum murinum), blue grass (Poa annua), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and fennel. A few ornamental trees appear to have been planted near the parking lot, including several Torrey pines (Pinus torreyana), red flowering gum (Eucalyptus ficifolia) and Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus). A substantial grove of mature bluegums (Eucalyptus globulus) visually separates the beach from this entry point.
Nearer to the Bay, Albany Beach is mostly unvegetated. A small network of dunes, located at the landward side of the beach, is densely vegetated in places. The species composition varies from sand-
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Bio Resources\Wetlands\Albany Beach delineation 2010.doc (07/20/10) 2 mound to sand-mound and often includes non-native species such as Kikuyu grass, Bermuda grass, sea rocket, New Zealand spinach, ice plant, or annual grasses. Iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis) occurs patchily throughout the study area but is concentrated on these dunes, where it forms large impenetrable mats that have been holding the dunes in place for many years. Relatively permanent topographic depressions in the dunes support some wetland plants, including native saltgrass (Distichlis spicata).
A long, narrow strip of ruderal vegetation separates the beach and the southern shoreline from the gravel parking area behind Golden Gate Fields. This highly disturbed habitat is characterized by typical weedy upland species intermixed with native and non-native coastal species. Hare barley, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandenstinum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and African daisy (Osteospermum ecklonis) can be found growing next to small patches of New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonioides), sea rocket (Cakile maritima) and iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis). Native coastal species identified in this area include beach bur-sage (Ambrosia chamissonis), gumplant (Grindelia stricta) and pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica).
Ruderal vegetation is also the dominant cover type at Fleming Point, which is the only remnant within the study area of the historic shoreline before bay fill occurred. Australian tea tree (Leptospermum laevigatum), most likely planted as an ornamental at Golden Gate Fields in the past, has become naturalized at Fleming Point, where it is a dominant species along with French broom. Characteristic herbaceous species in this area include wild oats (Avena sp.), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and vetch (Vicia sp.).
METHODS LSA investigated the site on March 26, 2010. Results of the formal delineation field work were supplemented by observations made on numerous site visits between November 2009 and April 2010. At the time of the March 26, 2010 site visit, the area had received approximately 0.23 inches of rainfall during the previous 7 days according to data collected by the nearest Department of Water Resources weather station at Richmond City Hall (CDEC Station 21: http://cdec.water.ca.gov).
The presence of potential wetlands was determined by applying the parameters outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the revised procedures in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Arid West Supplement) (Environmental Laboratory 2008). This method assesses the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. All of these parameters must be satisfied for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. LSA collected data at 5 sample points in the study area; the five data sheets are provided at the end of this report.
Potential wetland boundaries and sample point locations were mapped using a global position system (GPS) receiver with sub-meter accuracy. Potential wetland boundaries were determined by following a combination of the limits of hydrophytic plant species, the limits of observed wetland hydrology, and topographic breaks.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Bio Resources\Wetlands\Albany Beach delineation 2010.doc (07/20/10) 3 RESULTS The study area includes approximately 45 acres of San Francisco Bay, a navigable tidal water of the United States. On the 18 acres of land within the study area, LSA delineated 0.031 acre of seasonal wetlands and other waters that are likely subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 and Section 10. These features are described below and mapped on Figures 3 and 4, attached.
Section 404 The feature described herein as a seasonal drainage is not a creek or remnant slough. Rather, it is a footpath worn into the dunes by park visitors and serves as a primary access point to the beach from the paved parking lot west of Golden Gate Fields. The eastern end of the footpath or drainage is approximately 3 feet wide and opens out onto the paved parking area. The northwest corner of the parking lot holds standing water during and after storms. This water runs off the parking lot into the drainage/footpath where it collects for hours to a few days, depending on the amount of precipitation. The drainage/footpath is only one foot wide on average and ends somewhat abruptly after approximately 65 linear feet. There is no obvious outlet or point of surface flow between the end of the drainage and the bay and LSA observed no detectable flow in the “channel” when the drainage was full of water in early March 2010. The drainage can be characterized as having a bed and bank; although the “channel” geometry was likely created by foot traffic rather than scour.
Sample point 1 (see Photo 1 in Figure 5, attached) was established in the center of the drainage “channel.” Where the bed and bank are defined, there is no vegetation in the drainage/footpath. This is more likely due to trampling by foot traffic than suppression of germination due to inundation, as the area is typically inundated only for a few consecutive days. Indicators of wetland hydrology in the drainage are obvious and include: direct observations of inundation in early March, and water marks, sediment deposits, water stained leaf litter and algal matting in late March through April. Hydric soil indicators are less obvious because the feature is located on sand over fill that has been compacted by foot traffic. There are fine silts mixed with the sand that were not observed in sample point 2, a non- wetland sample point located on the sandy “bank” next to the drainage. The hole for sample point one could be excavated to only six inches due to the fill beneath the sand; however, this surface layer contains approximately 3 percent redox concentrations in pore linings and meets the requirements for Sand Redox (S5).
Approximately 35 feet west of where the defined drainage/footpath ends, a less defined continuation of the footpath has developed into a long, narrow seasonal wetland approximately 240 square feet in size. This wetland serves a similar function as the drainage by holding surface runoff for short periods as water percolates through the beach to the bay. This wetland is mostly vegetated and supports the only large patch of native saltgrass in the study area.
Approximately 30 feet south of the drainage/footpath within the dunes is a larger seasonal wetland approximately 1,093 square feet in size (see sample points 3 and 4). This wetland was well inundated in early March (see Photo 2 in Figure 5) and remained only moist by late March. When not inundated with water the wetland is densely vegetated, mostly by non-native species such as Kikuyu grass or Bermuda grass, cutleaf plantain (Plantago coronopus), and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). The adjacent sand mounds (see sample point 5) are vegetated by non-wetland weedy species such as iceplant, soft chess and wild oats. The soil in the concave wetland consists primarily of loam and sand
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Bio Resources\Wetlands\Albany Beach delineation 2010.doc (07/20/10) 4 with some gravel fill. Indicators of hydric soil were not observed at the two sample points within the wetland.
LSA and PWA also observed the wetlands and the drainage on March 4, 2010, when they were inundated to capacity. Approximately 2.47 inches of precipitation had occurred during the previous 7 days (CDEC Station 21: http://cdec.water.ca.gov). During other site visits, LSA observed visible water seepage coming through the sand at low tide; presumably this water was percolating from the seasonal drainage and wetlands within the dunes.
Section 10 The potential jurisdictional features delineated by LSA are not located on historic sloughs or marsh; however, they are located on sand that has deposited naturally over artificial fill in an area that was once a navigable portion of San Francisco Bay (SFEI 1998) (Figure 6). Therefore, these features are subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
RAPANOS/SWANCC JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ANALYSIS Characteristics of potential waters in the study area relevant to jurisdiction as per the Rapanos/Carabell and SWANCC Supreme Court decisions are discussed below. No chemical testing or biological observations other than recording on-site vegetation and soil characteristics were conducted by LSA. LSA’s assessment of potential jurisdiction is consistent with the guidance contained in the following documents provided by the EPA and the Corps:
• Corps and EPA guidance regarding Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States prepared by EPA in consultation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters Division (Corps/EPA 2007) • Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters Division • Information Requested for Verification of Corps Jurisdiction prepared by the San Francisco District of the Corps (Corps S.F. District 2007)
As described previously, the majority of the study area consists of bay fill; however, the geometry of the manmade shoreline has allowed sand from the bay to be deposited in the southeastern corner of the peninsula to form Albany Beach. The dunes that have formed at the landward side of the beach obstruct surface runoff as it flows from the paved parking areas toward the bay. Runoff collects on the paved areas and in a seasonal drainage and two seasonal wetlands within the dunes for approximately one to three consecutive days following heavy rains; thus, these features are not relatively permanent waters (RPW). The water that ponds in the seasonal wetlands and seasonal drainage within the dunes evaporates and also percolates through the dunes a short distance (100 to 200 feet) directly to San Francisco Bay, a traditional navigable water (TNW) of the United States. LSA has visually observed this percolation on the beach surface at low tide after rains.
The watershed of the study area is approximately the same size as the study area (63 acres). There is very little topography to direct surface flows from other areas into the study area.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Bio Resources\Wetlands\Albany Beach delineation 2010.doc (07/20/10) 5 CONCLUSIONS Potential waters of the United States in the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study Area consist of two small seasonal wetlands (0.030 acre) and one small seasonal drainage (0.001 acre), all of which appear to drain through the dunes and sandy beach to San Francisco Bay.
All features delineated by LSA are presumed to be subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The seasonal wetlands and seasonal drainage are adjacent to San Francisco Bay and are located on sand that has deposited naturally over artificial fill in an area that was once a navigable portion of San Francisco Bay. The findings and conclusions presented in this report, including the location and extent of other waters subject to regulatory jurisdiction, represent the professional opinion of LSA. These findings and conclusions should be considered preliminary until verified by the Corps.
REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-08-28.
Philip Williams & Associates, LTD (PWA). 2002. Environmental Conditions – Hydrology and Topography section in Eastshore Park Project Resource Inventory. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Coastal Conservancy, September 2001, revised February 2002.
San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 1998. Draft Bay Area EcoAtlas Narrative Documentation, Version 1.50b4. July 1998.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Soil Survey of Alameda County, California, Western Part.
P:\EBR1001\Task 2 Existing Conditions\Bio Resources\Wetlands\Albany Beach delineation 2010.doc (07/20/10) 6 r
Study Area
FIGURE 1
Albany Beach Restoration N and Public Access Feasibility Study 0 10
MILES SOURCE: ©2006 DeLORME. STREET ATLAS USA®2006. Regional Location
P:\EBR1001\g\Figure1_RegionalLocation.cdr (05/07/2010) Project Location
FIGURE 2
Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access 0 1000 2000 Feasibility Study FEET Project Location SOURCE: 7.5’ USGS Topographical Quadrants I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure2_ProjectLocation.mxd (7/22/2010) For Detail See Figure 4
Buchanan Street Trailhead Parking
San Francisco Bay
Fleming Point
Other Features Potential Waters FIGURE 3
Study Area Seasonal Wetland (0.030 acres) Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Seasonal Drainage (0.001 acres) Feasibility Study
0 125 250 Tidal Waters (45.213 acres) FEET Potential Waters of the United States SOURCES: Parcels from Alameda County. Aerial from DigitalGlobe (April 1, 2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure3_PotentialWaters.mxd (4/26/2010) 31.5
31.5
31.5 30 28.5 27 25.5 24 22.5 19.5 21
19.5
16.5
18 16.5 15 13.5 21 19.5 13.5 13.5
12 15 19.5 16.5
12
10.5
9 9 L-65’ SP1 W-1’ SP2
9
10.5
240 1093 Sq.Ft. SP3 Sq.Ft.
SP4 SP5 7.5 9
10.5
10.5 12
6
4.5
3
1.5
Other Features Potential Waters FIGURE 4
Jurisdictional Sample Point Seasonal Drainage (0.001 acres) Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Non-jurisdictional Sample Point Seasonal Wetland (0.030 acres) Feasibility Study
02550 Study Area Tidal Waters Potential Waters of the United States FEET Mapped March 26, 2010 SOURCES: Parcels from Alameda County. Aerial from DigitalGlobe (April 1, 2009). I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure4_Delineation.mxd (4/22/2010) Study Area Historic Baylands (pre-1820) FIGURE 5 Existing Tidal Waters (45.213 acres) Bay Flat Existing Seasonal Wetland (0.030 acres) Shallow Bay Existing Seasonal Drainage (0.001 acres) Old High Tidal Marsh Albany Beach Restoration Existing Shoreline Sandy Beach and Public Access 0400800 Feasibility Study Undeveloped Island FEET Section 10 Jurisdiction SOURCE: Historic Bayland Information from the San Francisco Estuary Institute (1998). Upland I:\EBR1001\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure5_SFEI Historic Baylands.mxd (7/23/2010) Photo 1. Sample Point 1 in Seasonal Drainage/Footpath. Photo taken 3/24/2010.
Photo 2. Backdune Seasonal Wetland, south of Drainage/Footpath. Photo taken 3/4/2010.
FIGURE 6
Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study
Site Photographs
P:\EBR1001\g\Delineation\Figure6_SitePhotographs.cdr (07/20/2010)