Westpoint Harbor
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
3. Project Description March 5, 2003 Page 3-1
Marina Shores Village Project Draft EIR City of Redwood City 3. Project Description March 5, 2003 Page 3-1 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the proposed action or "project" addressed by this EIR. The description is based on information provided to the City by the project applicant, Glenborough-Pauls LLC. As stipulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project description has been detailed to the extent needed for adequate review and evaluation of environmental impacts. In addition to describing key elements of the proposed project, this chapter is supplemented by project description details in individual environmental chapters 4 through 15. The description that follows includes (a) the project setting (location, boundaries, and local setting of the project site); (b) the project background (site history); (c) a statement of the basic project objectives sought by the applicant; (d) the project's physical and operational characteristics (i.e., land use components, densities, building types, architectural design, landscaping/open space, circulation and parking plans, marina and shoreline modifications, infrastructure provisions, project management, and other pertinent features); (e) the anticipated project construction schedule; and (f) the various anticipated permits and jurisdictional approvals required to allow construction of the project. 3.1 PROJECT SETTING 3.1.1 Regional Location As illustrated on Figure 3.1 (Regional Map), the proposed project site is located at the northern edge of the developed portion of Redwood City, on the San Francisco Bay side of U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway). U.S. 101 provides regional access to the approximately 46.45-acre project site; East Bayshore Road and Bair Island Road provide local access. -
Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips. -
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge 2020
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020 -2021 Waterfowl Hunting Regulations These Regulations along with maps and directions are available at: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Don_Edwards_San_Francisco_Bay/hunting.html General Information The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) contains approximately 10,580 acres of tidal areas and salt ponds that are open to waterfowl hunting (Map 1). Season opening and closing dates are determined by the State of California. Check the California Waterfowl Regulations (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting) each season for these dates. Hunters must comply with all State and Federal regulations including regulations listed under 50 CFR 32.24, and the refuge-specific regulations described below. Permit Requirements Hunters 18 years of age or older will need to have: 1) a valid California hunting license; 2) a valid, signed Federal Duck Stamp; 3) a California Duck Validation; 4) a Harvest Information Program (HIP) Validation; and 5) identification that includes a photograph (e.g., driver’s license). Junior and Youth hunters need the following: Junior/Youth Hunter Summary 15 yrs old or 16-17 yrs old w/ Jr 18 yrs old w/ Jr under (Youth) license (Junior) license (Junior) Participate in post-season youth hunt? Yes Yes No Needs a California hunting license? Yes Yes Yes Needs a HIP Validation? Yes Yes Yes Needs a Federal Duck Stamp? No Yes Yes Needs a State Duck Stamp (validation)? No No No Needs an adult accompanying them on regular hunt days? Yes No No Needs an adult accompanying them for youth hunt days? Yes Yes Yes It is required that all hunters possess a Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Permit when hunting in the Alviso Ponds. -
Goga Wrfr.Pdf
The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13 -
Attachment Iii: Baseline Status and Cumulative Effects for the San Francisco Bay Listed Species
ATTACHMENT III: BASELINE STATUS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY LISTED SPECIES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: ALAMEDAWHIPSNAKE ............................................................................................ 6 1.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................................... 6 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE........................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Factors affecting species within the action area ............................................... 6 1.2.1.1 Urban development .................................................................................... 7 1.2.1.2 Fire suppression ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.1.3 Predation .................................................................................................... 9 1.2.1.4 Grazing practices ..................................................................................... 10 1.2.1.5 Non-native species ................................................................................... 10 1.2.2 Baseline Status ................................................................................................ 11 1.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 13 2: BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY ....................................................................... 14 2.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .................................................................................. -
Attachment Ii
ATTACHMENT II: STATUS AND LIFE HISTORY OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY LISTED SPECIES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: ALAMEDA WHIPSNAKE ........................................................................................... 5 1.1 Species Listing Status .............................................................................................. 5 1.2 Description ............................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Distribution .............................................................................................................. 5 1.4 USFWS Critical Habitat .......................................................................................... 6 1.5 Habitat .................................................................................................................... 11 1.6 Diet ......................................................................................................................... 11 1.7 Life History and Reproduction .............................................................................. 11 1.8 References .............................................................................................................. 12 2: BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY ....................................................................... 14 2.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................ 14 2.2 Description ............................................................................................................ -
The San Mateo County Harbor District
What is the Price of Dysfunction? The San Mateo County Harbor District Summary | Background | Methodology | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations | Requests for Responses | Attachments | Responses SUMMARY There is no way to sugar coat the issue. The commission governing the San Mateo County (County) Harbor District (Harbor District or District) is in disarray. It operates the District at significant yearly losses. Its commission meetings sometimes require police presence. YouTube videos mock the commissioners. Tenants’ rent checks are lost. Public comments about the commissioners are scathing. Financial reporting is anything but transparent. There are accusations of records destruction and excess benefits paid to commissioners. Lawsuits charging harassment fly between a commissioner and the District’s general manager. Video recording of commission meetings is abruptly suspended, and then reinstated. One commissioner loudly complains about the seating arrangement at meetings. Press reports frequently document the dysfunction. Social media is rife with criticism. A reporter for a daily newspaper claims that commissioners don’t “want to fix the problems, they just want to be right.” Meanwhile the property taxpayers of San Mateo County fund the District to the tune of $5,000,000 annually.1 The 2013-2014 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) received numerous complaints from the public about the District, including how the District awards leases, the alleged overcharging of lessees, the election process of commissioners, and a lack of transparency in the District’s financial reporting. The District’s office is overwhelmed by public records requests. The public’s disenchantment with the District has been reported on and documented as far back as 1963. -
Flow Equalization & Resource Recovery Facility Levee
Flow Equalization & Resource Recovery Facility Levee Improvements & Bayfront Recycled Water Facility Project DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH#2020050414 DECEMBER 2020 West Bay Sanitary District 500 Laurel Street | Menlo Park, CA 94025 This page intentionally left blank FERRF Levee Improvements and Bayfront RWF West Bay Sanitary District Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2020 Table of Contents i FERRF LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS AND BAYFRONT RECYCLED WATER FACILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME I - EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS EIR SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 1 S.1 Environmental Procedures .......................................................................................... 1 S.2 Type of EIR................................................................................................................. 2 S.3 Summary of Proposed Project .................................................................................... 2 S.4 Uses of this EIR .......................................................................................................... 3 S.5 Public Outreach ........................................................................................................... 4 S.6 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 7 S.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 23 Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................................. -
Westpoint Regatta Sailing Instructions
WESTPOINT REGATTA June 22 2019 SAILING INSTRUCTIONS 1. RULES: 1.1 This regatta will be governed by the rules as defined by The Racing Rules of Sailing. *The J 105 Class will be sailing under the J 105 Fleet #1 class rules. 1.2 RRS 40 is changed as follows: All competitors are required to wear life jackets that are USCG or ISO approved. Belt Packs are not allowed. The “Y” flag will not be displayed. 1.3 RRS 52 is changed as follows: autopilots are permitted in the short-handed division (Single and Doublehanded). 1.4 Non Spinnaker Division yachts may fly only one headsail at a time from the headstay regardless of the point of sail. Non-Spinnaker Division yachts with headfoils or double forestays shall drop their in-use jib to the deck prior to raising a new one. 2. NOTICES TO COMPETITORS: Notices to competitors and changes to the sailing instructions will be posted on the YRA web site http://www.yra.org and the Westpoint Regatta Notice Board found on Jibeset.net: https://www.jibeset.net/YRA000.php?RG=T003423497 3. CHANGES TO THE SAILING INSTRUCTIONS: Any change to the Sailing Instructions will be posted before 1000 on Friday, June 21st. 4. CLASS FLAGS: 4.1 See attachment 1 for Division/Class Flags (Attachment 1 will be posted on the YRA website and on Jibeset.net on Friday, June 21st) 4.2 Class Flags are NOT required to be flown for the Westpoint Regatta. 5. THE COURSE AND MARKS: 5.1 Round marks as indicated: START MARK MARK FINISH DISTANCE YRA 10 YRA 17 - P G “11” B - P SeqYC Temporary Mark 28.7 nm 6. -
11. Soils and Geology March 5, 2003 Page 11-1
Marina Shores Village Project Draft EIR City of Redwood City 11. Soils and Geology March 5, 2003 Page 11-1 11. SOILS AND GEOLOGY This EIR chapter describes existing geologic and soil conditions at the project site and immediate vicinity, identifies associated potential geotechnical impacts related to development of the proposed project, and sets forth measures designed to mitigate identified significant adverse impacts. Data sources used to complete these descriptions include a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the Marina Shores Village project site performed for the applicant by Treadwell & Rollo, Environmental and Geotechnical Consultants, dated June 21, 2001; the assessment of project hydrologic implications completed for this EIR by Clearwater Hydrology (see chapter 9); a wetlands investigation and a biological assessment performed for the applicant by the Huffman-Broadway Group, both dated February 2002; published reference materials produced by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); environmental documents prepared for previous development projects on the site (e.g., the Peninsula Marina and Office Park) and in the immediate vicinity (e.g., the "Villas at Bair Island" and the Bair Island Marina); and the Redwood City Strategic General Plan. The Treadwell & Rollo preliminary geotechnical investigation, much of which is presented in this EIR chapter, describes the limitations and preliminary nature of its conclusions by stating, "The conclusions presented in this report are preliminary and intended to address general geotechnical conditions of the site. The report has not been prepared to meet the need of design professionals, contractors, or any other parties in preparation of final design or construction documents. -
San Francisco Bay Plan
San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill. -
Changes in Abundance and Distribution of Nesting Double-Crested Cormorants Phalacrocorax Auritus in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1975–2017
Rauzon et al.: Changes in nesting Double-Crested Cormorants in San Francisco Bay area 127 CHANGES IN ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NESTING DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS PHALACROCORAX AURITUS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 1975–2017 MARK J. RAUZON1*, MEREDITH L. ELLIOTT2, PHILLIP J. CAPITOLO3, L. MAX TARJAN4, GERARD J. McCHESNEY5, JOHN P. KELLY6 & HARRY R. CARTER7† 1Laney College, Geography Department, 900 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94607, USA *([email protected]) 2Point Blue Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Drive, #11, Petaluma, CA 94954, USA 3Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, 115 McAllister Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 4San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, 524 Valley Way, Milpitas, CA 95035, USA 5US Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1 Marshlands Road, Fremont, CA 94555, USA 6Audubon Canyon Ranch, Cypress Grove Research Center, P.O. Box 808, Marshall, CA 94940, USA 7Humboldt State University, Department of Wildlife, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521, USA †Deceased Received 19 October 2018, accepted 13 February 2019 ABSTRACT RAUZON, M.J., ELLIOTT, M.L., CAPITOLO, P.J., TARJAN, L.M., McCHESNEY, G.J., KELLY, J.P. & CARTER, H.R. 2019. Changes in abundance and distribution of nesting Double-crested Cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus in the San Francisco Bay area, 1975–2017. Marine Ornithology 47: 127–138. In the San Francisco Bay area, California, the Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus population has recovered from significant declines to reach breeding population sizes comparable to those from the late 19th century, when only one colony offshore at the South Farallon Islands (SFI) was known.