DOCSLIB.ORG

Alameda–North Bay Farm Island Pipeline Crossings Project Draft Environmental Impact Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alameda–North Bay Farm Island Pipeline Crossings Project Draft Environmental Impact Report EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT Alameda–North Bay Farm Island Pipeline Crossings Project Draft Environmental Impact Report JULY 2016 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 740 San Francisco, CA 94111 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT Alameda–North Bay Farm Island Pipeline Crossings Project Draft Environmental Impact Report JULY 2016 Prepared for: East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Distribution Planning Division 375 11th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Prepared by: Panorama Environmental, Inc. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 740 San Francisco, CA 94111 650-373-1200 [email protected] One Embarcadero Center, Suite 740 San Francisco, CA 94111 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Project Description .......................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.4 Summary of Impacts ....................................................................................................... ES-4 ES.5 Analysis of Proposed Project and Design Alternatives .............................................. ES-4 ES.6 Issues Raised During Public Outreach and Scoping Period ...................................... ES-5 ES.7 Resources Not Evaluated Further in the EIR ................................................................. ES-5 ES.8 Organization of the EIR ................................................................................................... ES-6 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report .............................................................. 1-1 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Process .............................................................. 1-1 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.4 Need for the Project.......................................................................................................... 2-9 2.5 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2-9 2.6 Project Design .................................................................................................................. 2-10 2.7 Project Construction ....................................................................................................... 2-12 2.8 Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................................ 2-33 2.9 Permanent Rights-of-Way and Temporary Easements .............................................. 2-34 2.10 Permits and Approvals .................................................................................................... 2-35 2.11 References ........................................................................................................................ 2-36 3 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction to Environmental Analysis .......................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Aesthetics......................................................................................................................... 3.2-1 3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 3.3-1 3.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 3.4-1 Alameda–North Bay Farm Island Pipeline Crossings Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ● July 2016 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 3.5-1 3.6 Energy Use ....................................................................................................................... 3.6-1 3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ...................................................................................... 3.7-1 3.8 Greenhouse Gases ......................................................................................................... 3.8-1 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 3.9-1 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................... 3.10-1 3.11 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 3.11-1 3.12 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 3.12-1 3.13 Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................... 3.13-1 4 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4-1 Approach to Analysis and Overview ............................................................................. 4-1 Alternatives Screening Process ........................................................................................ 4-2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis in the EIR ................................................... 4-14 Alternatives Considered but Rejected......................................................................... 4-15 Comparison of Selected Alternatives .......................................................................... 4-23 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................................ 4-32 References ........................................................................................................................ 4-32 5 Other CEQA Considerations .................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Growth Inducement ....................................................................................................... 5-43 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .......................................................... 5-45 5.4 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................................. 5-45 5.5 References ........................................................................................................................ 5-46 6 Report Preparation ................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Report Preparers ................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Agencies and Personnel Consulted ............................................................................... 6-3 7 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ................................................................... 7-1 7.1 CEQA Requirements ......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 MMRP Matrix ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 Alameda–North Bay Farm Island Pipeline Crossings Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ● July 2016 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Appendices Appendix A: Summary of Public Scoping Appendix B: Initial Study Appendix C: Construction Details Appendix D: EBMUD Standard Practices and Procedures Appendix E: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Technical Report Appendix F: Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix G: Cultural Resources Technical Report Appendix H: Geotechnical Assessment Appendix I: Noise and Vibration Technical Report Appendix J: Transportation and Traffic Technical Report List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and EBMUD Practices and Procedures ........................... ES-8 Table ES-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................. ES-40 Table 2.7-1 Jack and Bore Construction Details .....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ovarian Development of the Mud Crab Scylla Paramamosain in a Tropical Mangrove Swamps, Thailand
    Available Online JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Publications J. Sci. Res. 2 (2), 380-389 (2010) www.banglajol.info/index.php/JSR Ovarian Development of the Mud Crab Scylla paramamosain in a Tropical Mangrove Swamps, Thailand M. S. Islam1, K. Kodama2, and H. Kurokura3 1Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Jessore Science and Technology University, Jessore- 7407, Bangladesh 2Marine Science Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, Texas 78373, USA 3Laboratory of Global Fisheries Science, Department of Global Agricultural Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan Received 15 October 2009, accepted in revised form 21 March 2010 Abstract The present study describes the ovarian development stages of the mud crab, Scylla paramamosain from Pak Phanang mangrove swamps, Thailand. Samples were taken from local fishermen between June 2006 and December 2007. Ovarian development was determined based on both morphological appearance and histological observation. Ovarian development was classified into five stages: proliferation (stage I), previtellogenesis (II), primary vitellogenesis (III), secondary vitellogenesis (IV) and tertiary vitellogenesis (V). The formation of vacuolated globules is the initiation of primary vitellogenesis and primary growth. The follicle cells were found around the periphery of the lobes, among the groups of oogonia and oocytes. The follicle cells were hardly visible at the secondary and tertiary vitellogenesis stages. Yolk granules occurred in the primary vitellogenesis stage and are first initiated in the inner part of the oocytes, then gradually concentrated to the periphery of the cytoplasm. The study revealed that the initiation of vitellogenesis could be identified by external observation of the ovary but could not indicate precisely.
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin
    Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city.
    [Show full text]
  • California Highways & Public Works, May-June 1962
    P ~Jmited States of America PgtOCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 07th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 108 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, 1dIAY 21, 1962 1Vo, g0 A~~' en~Zx tragic to our economy and to our etFOrts to Fourth, ovr State highway commission is The California Highway Program remain apace with our population increases composed of dedicated and intelligent men if this. total highway construction program who are appointed for overlapping terms, in were seriouslq curtailed for any reason. order to provide continuity, and they are EXTENSION OF REMARKS Second. I want to say thaw I am convinced required by law to take a statewide and not os California's Department of Public Works and a sectional viewpoint. State law spells out Division of Highways cooperate fully, com- in detail the procedure to be fflllowed by HON. GEORGE P. MILLER pleCely, and in honesty with the T7.S. Bureau the State highway commission, including OF CALIf'ORNIA of Public Roads. The regional office of the the requirement that public hearings be held Bureau of Public Roads Yor certain Western IN THE HOIISE OF REPRESENTATIVES on a rather heavy schedule. I have insisted, States is In Ban FYancisco anfl the State office as Governor Snight and Governor Warren Tuesday, M¢y 8, 1962 of the Bureau o1 Public Roads is right here insisted, that members of the highway com- in Sacramento where there is daily contact Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. Mr. mission be nonpartisan in their conduct o1 between the California highway people and highway policy matters. Our commission is Speaker,from time to time, from various the Federal highway people.
    [Show full text]
  • About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service
    About WETA Maintenance Facility will consolidate Central and South Bay fleet operations, include a fueling facility with emergency fuel The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation storage capacity, and provide an alternative EOC location, Authority (WETA) is a regional public transit agency tasked with thereby significantly expanding WETA’s emergency response operating and expanding ferry service on the San Francisco and recovery capabilities. Bay, and is responsible for coordinating the water transit response to regional emergencies. Future Present WETA is planning for a system that seamlessly connects cities in the greater Bay Area with San Francisco, using Today, WETA operates daily passenger ferry service to the fast, environmentally responsible vessels, with wait times cities of Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco, Vallejo, and South of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. WETA’s San Francisco, carr4$)"(*- /#)тѵр million passengers 2035 vision would expand service throughout the Bay Area, annually under the San Francisco Bay Ferry brand. Over the operating 12 services at 16 terminals with a fleet of 44 vessels. last five years, SF Bay Ferry ridership has grown чф percent. In the near term, WETA will launch a Richmond/San Francisco route (201ш) and new service to Treasure Island. Other By the Numbers terminal sites such as Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda, Berkeley, Mission Bay, Redwood City, the South Bay, and the Carquinez *- /#)ǔǹǒ --$ ./-).+*-/0+ Strait are on the not-too-distant horizon. ($''$*)-$ -. /*ǗǕǑ$& .-*.. 0. 4 --4 /# 4 #4ǹ 1 -44 -ǹ A Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service --4-$ -.#$+ 1 )! --$ . Vallejo #.$)- . /*!' / /2 )ǓǑǒǘ CARQUINEZ STRAIT Ǚǖʞ.$) ǓǑǒǓǹ )ǓǑǓǑǹ Hercules WETA Expansion Targets Richmond Funded Traveling by ferry has become increasingly more popular in • Richmond Berkeley the Bay Area, as the economy continues to improve and the • Treasure Island Partially Funded Pier 41 Treasure Island population grows.
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: an Overview
    Marine Geology 345 (2013) 3–17 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Geology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/margeo Sediment transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: An overview Patrick L. Barnard a,⁎, David H. Schoellhamer b,c, Bruce E. Jaffe a, Lester J. McKee d a U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, Sacramento, CA, USA c University of California, Davis, USA d San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA, USA article info abstract Article history: The papers in this special issue feature state-of-the-art approaches to understanding the physical processes Received 29 March 2012 related to sediment transport and geomorphology of complex coastal–estuarine systems. Here we focus on Received in revised form 9 April 2013 the San Francisco Bay Coastal System, extending from the lower San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta, through the Accepted 13 April 2013 Bay, and along the adjacent outer Pacific Coast. San Francisco Bay is an urbanized estuary that is impacted by Available online 20 April 2013 numerous anthropogenic activities common to many large estuaries, including a mining legacy, channel dredging, aggregate mining, reservoirs, freshwater diversion, watershed modifications, urban run-off, ship traffic, exotic Keywords: sediment transport species introductions, land reclamation, and wetland restoration. The Golden Gate strait is the sole inlet 9 3 estuaries connecting the Bay to the Pacific Ocean, and serves as the conduit for a tidal flow of ~8 × 10 m /day, in addition circulation to the transport of mud, sand, biogenic material, nutrients, and pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal
    Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully
    [Show full text]
  • East Bay Regional Park District
    East Bay~ Regional Park District TO: PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: GLENN KIRBY, CHAIR SUBJECT: PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 24, 2014 Location: Peralta Oaks Court 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 6:45 pm Social and Refreshments REGULAR MEETING 7:00 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes - February 24, 2014 2. Introductions 3. Public Comments 7:15 p.m. 4. Presentations: (I) a. Introduction of Cultural Services Coordinator - Jim O'Connor, AGM Operations (I) b. Statewide Drought Effects - Jim O'Connor, AGM Operations & Anne Scheer, Chief of Parks (I) c. Regional Parks Foundation Updates - Carol Johnson, AGM Public Affairs 8:00 p.m. 5. PAC Member Comments· 6. Report from the Vice Chair - John Mercurio 7. Board Committee Reports 8. Status of Recommendations 9. Old Business 10. New Business 11. Adjournment - Next Meeting April 28, 2014 (A) Action (I) Information (R) Recommendation ATTACHMENTS 1. CSC Memo 2. Drought Press Release 3. Regional Parks Foundation Memo 4. Work Plan 2014 5. Status of Recommendations 6. Articles & Correspondence Unapproved Meeting Minutes PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 24, 2014 ATTENDING: Kirby, Madsen, Madison, Godfrey, Kern, Coffey, Vann, Mercurio, Bank, Palacios, Simmons, Beyaert, Volin, Coomber, Shalaby, Gregory NOTATTENDING: Best, Pellegrini, DeMarcus, Yee STAFF ATTENDING: Barial, Pfuehler, Scheer, Johnson GUESTS: Director John Sutter PUBLIC: None. The meeting began at 7:05 p.m. I. Approval of Minutes: PAC member Beyaert moved and PAC member Coomber seconded approval of the January 27, 2014 minutes with one correction. The motion passed unanimously. PAC members Madison and Madsen abstained due to absence from the meeting. 2. Introductions: PAC Chair Kirby asked PAC members, staff and the public to introduce themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Guard Island Southshore Center
    JACK LONDON SQUARE Oakland Ferry Terminal EMBARCADERO 80 OAKLAN Al DeWitt 2014 Metropolitan O’Club Yacht Club D Bicycle Shop Bike/Walk Path California Gompers Arkansas Enterprise Caution: Noisy, Narrow and Dangerous Bike Locker Bridge with Steps Trail through Posey Tube Alameda Road Stairs Fire Station Bike Path-Caution Mulvaney 9 Pyro Bus Stop Protected Bike Lane Mars Texas Shasta Õ Flint Cimarron Ct Gas Station & Air Bike Lane Narrow Boardwalk WILLIE STARGELL Public Restroom Bike Route 6 EMBARCADERO Public Phone Park Glenview Gate Shopping Center Coast RUBY BRIDGES Guard 80 SCHOOL Island North Star Rd Oakland Yacht Club Eagle Rd Encinal Yacht Club Pickering Dr Campbell Blvd McCulloch Wakefield Dr Icarus Dr Spencer Rd Dr Brush St Dr BASE ro SCHOOL1900 Mun Bear Rd Hudson 1800 1800 1700 ACADEMY OF 1800 Dennison St 1700 ALAMEDA China Clipper EMBARCADERO 100 200 1800 ALAMEDA 400 Alameda Yacht Club 100 500 300 ANIMAL 1700 FortmanThoroughfare Way Cruiser 1600 Hibbard 100 NEACLC SHELTE Red Sails R Bohemia 1500 Alaska Packer 1600 200 200 2000 600 Island Yacht Club 100 1500 900 1000 200 1000 1599 29th Ave 1600 1500 1400 1800 800 23rd Ave 1400 1400 Esterbrook Kennedy Bikers: Take underpass on 29th Avenue ALAMEDA PARK 900 1600 to stay on East 7th Street 1300 Chapman Street East 7th St FRUITVALE Queen’s 1500 1000 1300 1400 BART 1100 1200 1500 Ford St Glascock Street 1300 400 King’s 1300 1400 Derby St 1300 1600 1200 1200 1300 8 900 1700 2000 1300 1100 Stairs East 8th St 1200 1800 1900 1200 Ballena Bay 1900 1200 2400 Yacht Club 1900 Lancaster
    [Show full text]
  • Bothin Marsh 46
    EMERGENT ECOLOGIES OF THE BAY EDGE ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE CMG Summer Internship 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Research Introduction 2 Approach 2 What’s Out There Regional Map 6 Site Visits ` 9 Salt Marsh Section 11 Plant Community Profiles 13 What’s Changing AUTHORS Impacts of Sea Level Rise 24 Sarah Fitzgerald Marsh Migration Process 26 Jeff Milla Yutong Wu PROJECT TEAM What We Can Do Lauren Bergenholtz Ilia Savin Tactical Matrix 29 Julia Price Site Scale Analysis: Treasure Island 34 Nico Wright Site Scale Analysis: Bothin Marsh 46 This publication financed initiated, guided, and published under the direction of CMG Landscape Architecture. Conclusion Closing Statements 58 Unless specifically referenced all photographs and Acknowledgments 60 graphic work by authors. Bibliography 62 San Francisco, 2019. Cover photo: Pump station fronting Shorebird Marsh. Corte Madera, CA RESEARCH INTRODUCTION BREADTH As human-induced climate change accelerates and impacts regional map coastal ecologies, designers must anticipate fast-changing conditions, while design must adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. With this task in mind, this research project investigates the needs of existing plant communities in the San plant communities Francisco Bay, explores how ecological dynamics are changing, of the Bay Edge and ultimately proposes a toolkit of tactics that designers can use to inform site designs. DEPTH landscape tactics matrix two case studies: Treasure Island Bothin Marsh APPROACH Working across scales, we began our research with a broad suggesting design adaptations for Treasure Island and Bothin survey of the Bay’s ecological history and current habitat Marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2021 | City of Alameda, California
    March 2021 | City of Alameda, California DRAFT ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 CONTENTS 04 MARCH 2021 City of Alameda, California MOBILITY ELEMENT 78 01 05 GENERAL PLAN ORGANIZATION + THEMES 6 HOUSING ELEMENT FROM 2014 02 06 LAND USE + CITY DESIGN ELEMENT 22 PARKS + OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 100 03 07 CONSERVATION + CLIMATE ACTION 54 HEALTH + SAFETY ELEMENT 116 ELEMENT MARCH 2021 DRAFT 1 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD: PRESIDENT Alan H. Teague VICE PRESIDENT Asheshh Saheba BOARD MEMBERS Xiomara Cisneros Ronald Curtis Hanson Hom Rona Rothenberg Teresa Ruiz POLICY, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS: Amie MacPhee, AICP, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Sheffield Hale, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Candice Miller, Cultivate, Lead Graphic Designer PHOTOGRAPHY: Amie MacPhee Maurice Ramirez Alain McLaughlin MARCH 2021 DRAFT 3 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 FORWARD Preparation of the Alameda General Plan 2040 began in 2018 and took shape over a three-year period during which time residents, businesses, community groups, and decision-makers reviewed, revised and refined plan goals, policy statements and priorities, and associated recommended actions. In 2020, the Alameda Planning Board held four public forums to review and discuss the draft General Plan. Over 1,500 individuals provided written comments and suggestions for improvements to the draft Plan through the General Plan update website. General Plan 2040 also benefited from recommendations and suggestions from: ≠ Commission on People with Disabilities ≠ Golden
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring San Francisco Bay
    Restoring San Francisco Bay Amy Hutzel Coastal Conservancy Photo credit: Rick Lewis 150 years of urbanization has altered San Francisco Bay (1850) (1998) We have had a massive impact on the Bay over the last century We’ve filled thousands of acres We’ve dumped garbage IMPORTANCE OF TIDAL MARSH • Growing threat: Climate Change Photo credit: Vivian Reed • Build up of sediment and vegetation takes time. • Higher starting elevation means marshes survive sea-level rise for longer. San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Mission: To raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority was created by Save The Bay and others through 2008 legislation. Its mandate is to propose new public funding mechanisms to voters for Bay marsh restoration; then provide grants to accelerate wetland restoration, flood protection, and public access to Bay. Governing Board comprised of elected officials from each quadrant of the Bay Area; Advisory Committee represents many community interests. It currently has no funding to carry out Photo credit: Vivian Reed its important mission. Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA June 2016 ballot measure to accelerate Bay wetlands restoration $12/parcel/year for 20 years, would generate ~$500 million for restoration projects around the Bay Strong majority of nine-county Bay Area voters are supportive; needs 2/3 support in all nine counties, cumulatively, to pass Examples of Projects Anticipated to be Eligible For Funding: • Eden Landing (Alameda) • Chelsea Wetlands (Contra Costa) • Bel Marin Keys (Marin) • Edgerly Island (Napa) • Yosemite Slough (San Francisco) • Ravenswood Ponds (San Mateo) • Alviso Ponds (Santa Clara) • Benicia Shoreline (Solano) • Skaggs Island (Sonoma) Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA Restoring vital fish, bird and wildlife habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • MUD CREATURE STUDY Overview: the Mudflats Support a Tremendous Amount of Life
    MUD CREATURE STUDY Overview: The mudflats support a tremendous amount of life. In this activity, students will search for and study the creatures that live in bay mud. Content Standards Correlations: Science p. 307 Grades: K-6 TIME FRAME fOR TEACHING THIS ACTIVITY Key Concepts: Mud creatures live in high abundance in the Recommended Time: 30 minutes mudflats, providing food for Mud Creature Banner (7 minutes) migratory ducks and shorebirds • use the Mud Creature Banner to introduce students to mudflat and the endangered California habitat clapper rail. When the tide is out, Mudflat Food Pyramid (3 minutes) the mudflats are revealed and birds land on the mudflats to feed. • discuss the mudflat food pyramid, using poster Mud Creature Study (20 minutes) Objectives: • sieve mud in sieve set, using slough water Students will be able to: • distribute small samples of mud to petri dishes • name and describe two to three • look for mud creatures using hand lenses mud creatures • describe the mudflat food • use the microscopes for a closer view of mud creatures pyramid • if data sheets and pencils are provided, students can draw what • explain the importance of the they find mudflat habitat for migratory birds and endangered species Materials: How THIS ACTIVITY RELATES TO THE REFUGE'S RESOURCES Provided by the Refuge: What are the Refuge's resources? • 1 set mud creature ID cards • significant wildlife habitat • 1 mud creature flannel banner • endangered species • 1 mudflat food pyramid poster • 1 mud creature ID book • rhigratory birds • 1 four-layered sieve set What makes it necessary to manage the resources? • 1 dish of mud and trowel • Pollution, such as oil, paint, and household cleaners, when • 1 bucket of slough water dumped down storm drains enters the slough and mudflats and • 1 pitcher of slough water travels through the food chain, harming animals.
    [Show full text]