DOCSLIB.ORG

Richard Grassetti Principal Grassetti Environmental Consulting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Richard Grassetti Principal Grassetti Environmental Consulting TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM Meeting Date: June 8, 2016 PREPARED BY: Mami Moseley, Associate Planner [email protected] APPLICATION NO.: Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 LOCATION: 19 Highland Avenue (north side of Highland Avenue just east of 15 Highland A venue) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Ed Pearson CONTACT PERSON: Ed Pearson APPELLANTS: Badame, Roberts, Smullen, and Spalding Families APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Y2. APN 529-37-033 EXHIBITS: Previously received with May 11,2016 Desk Item Report: I. Emails from appellants, received May 11 , 2016 Previously received with June 8, 2016 Staff Report 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations 4. Recommended Conditions (nine pages) 5. Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (3 pages) 6. Town Council Resolution (200 1-128) 7. December 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes (15 pages) 8. Consulting Architect's Report, dated February 24, 2016 9. 2010 Arborist Report (26 pages), dated February 15, 2010 10. Project Data Sheet 11. Letter from Anthony Badame, received March 24, 2016 12. March 29, 2016 Development Review Committee minutes (two pages) 13. Appeal letter, received April 8, 2016 (four pages) 14. May 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting minutes 15. Applicant's response letter and Attachments (1-14), received May 27, 2016 16. Public comment received through 11 :00 a.m., Thursday, June 2, 2016 17. Additional letters from applicant (11 pages), received June 2, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June8,2016 18. Development plans (16 pages), received March 22, 2016 Received with this Addendum Report: 19. Letter from appellant (58 pages), received on June 2, 2016. REMARKS: The attached letter was received after completion of the staff report. proved by: Joel Paulson, AICP Community Development Director JSP:MFM:cg cc: Ed Pearson, 239 Thurston Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Lisa Roberts, 78 Alpine A venue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Theresa Spalding, 15 Highland A venue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dede Smullen, 25 Highland A venue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Anthony Badame, 1 Highland A venue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\20 16\Highland- 19-appeai-6-8-16-ADD.doc Marni F. Moseley, AICP, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Planning Division 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 June 1, 2016 SUBJECT: 19 HIGHLAND AVENUE CREEK AND CEQA ISSUES Dear Ms. Moseley, Grassetti Environmental Consulting (GECo) has been retained by a group of concerned citizens to review California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance and creek setback issues associated with the 19 Highland Avenue project. As GECo’s principal, with over 33 years of CEQA experience, I have reviewed the CEQA documentation, supporting documents, more recent biological analyses, and local and regional stream setback requirements in preparation of this letter. I also have conducted a site visit to visually assess site conditions (from adjacent landowners’ property and from Highland Avenue). In addition, GECo has retained a consulting biologist, Pacific Biology, to review existing biological resources reports, conduct a visual site visit, and opine on the appropriate classification of the creek and extent of riparian habitat. The Pacific Biology assessment report is attached to this letter, as are my qualifications. On the basis of communications between our client and your office, we understand that the Town intends to use the 2010 CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as the CEQA documentation for the proposed project. Similarly, based on email communications, we understand that the Town considers the applicable setback of the proposed house from the creek as 15 feet. This letter addresses the appropriateness of these determinations, as well as overall adequacy of the CEQA document. In summary, I have concluded that, based on a review of available information, there is no evidence supporting the use of the 15-foot setback (the appropriate creek setback on the project site is 25 feet), the Initial Study is deficient in addressing the setback issue, and the Town’s impermissible CEQA process has resulted in a denial of resource agency and public review of the proposed project. Creek Setback Issues Town-Required Setbacks The Town of Los Gatos is a participant in the Santa Clara Water Resources Collaborative. The 7008 Bristol Drive, Berkeley, CA 94705 (510) 849-2354 19 Highland Avenue Page 2 Creek and CEQA Comments June 1, 2016 Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (G&S) was developed by the Collaborative to protect in-stream and riparian water quality, resources, and habitat. The G&S contains the requirements and guidance for development adjacent to streams. The Town Council adopted a resolution implementing the G&S on February 20, 2007. Specifically, the Town adopted Chapters 2 and 3 of the G&S as Town requirements. Chapter 2 describes how streams and setback zones are delineated. Chapter 3 describes stream protection policies and requirements, including required stream setbacks. The Town is responsible for implementing these standards. It is required to review potential impacts to streams as part of the development review process. Projects adjacent to streams are required to be forwarded to the SCVWD for comment. As detailed on p. 3.8 of the G&S, to minimize impacts to streams, structures are required be setback from the stream. The required setback between the stream and the structure is called the “slope stability protection area”. The “Slope Stability Protection Area” is an area between a structure and the stream2. In some cases, a range of numbers is indicated. The assumption is that each local jurisdiction will select one of the numbers based on their existing priorities, permitting processes, and on-site conditions. It is also assumed that the channel depth of most streams in urban Santa Clara County is 10 feet deep or less. STABILITY PROTECTION AREA Stream with Little Structurally 3 Ephemeral or No Hardening Engineered System Stream Size of Protection 25-20 feet 15 feet 10-15 feet Area (as measured 4 from Top of Bank) Notes: Potential Additions to the Slope A. For a large lot (greater than 10,000 sq. ft), add 5 feet. B. For a large home in which the FAR triggers a discretionary review, work with applicant to ensure that impacts such as drainage are redirected away from a stream and pursue opportunities to increase the slope stability protection area to better protect the stream (and home) from impacts. For example, consider decreasing the required front yard setback in order to accommodate an increased rear yard setback/slope stability area. 1 Single Family Unit refers to both (a) new single-family units on existing lots of record and (b) new single- family remodels/rebuilds as defined by local regulations/policy/ guidelines 2 In addition to protecting this area, BMP’s should be used that are reflective of Guidelines and Standards, for activities adjacent to these areas where discretionary review is used (i.e redirecting drainage away from the stream and no removal of native riparian plants 3 A “structurally engineered system” is designed to provide slope stability. It may be a concrete-lined channel (U-frame or trapezoidal) or a stream substantially modified with riprap, gabions, structurally engineered sacked concrete, etc. 4 Area measured for Slope Stability Requirement to be measured based on location of Top of Bank, whether stream is on or off of property. 2 19 Highland Avenue Page 3 Creek and CEQA Comments June 1, 2016 Applicability of Required Setbacks to Project Site The project site has been assessed by a number of biological reports with respect to creek setback issues. The most detailed of these studies was conducted by Wood Biological Consulting in their January 2008 report1. That study identified riparian areas on the site and discussed applicable setbacks. As described on p. 2 of the Wood report: The unnamed tributary to Los Gatos Creek is presumed to be a second or third order intermittent stream. Downstream of the property, the stream course is directed into a concrete-lined channel, which ultimately drains into a buried culvert. The low-gradient stream enters the property from the east at approximately 72 feet in elevation and exits the site in the west at 60 feet in elevation, traversing approximately 320 feet. The banks of the creek channel are incised, scoured, and show some evidence of bank failure especially in the meanders. On site, the channel varies in width at the scour line from 3 to 5 feet, with widths at top of bank ranging from 6 to 11 feet. The stream is shown as a "blue-line" water course on the USGS topographic map and the channel qualifies as a waters of the U.S. and a waters of the State, subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act (as administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) and the California Fish and Game Code (as administered by the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]), respectively. With respect to the site’s riparian corridor, Wood states: Although no typical riparian habitat is present on the subject property, the rationale for determining the limits of the riparian zone, as shown on the attached figure, is based on the following limits claimed by the CDFG (see Section 5, below), as currently applied pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code. These limits are generally applied to the outer edge of the dripline of native trees whose canopies extend over the tops of bank of a regulated stream course.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Monitoring Approaches for Large Bay-Delta Estuarine Wetland Restoration Projects Adapting to Uncertainty Or Novelty During Accelerated Climate Change
    Alternative Monitoring Approaches for Large Bay-Delta Estuarine Wetland Restoration Projects Adapting to Uncertainty or Novelty during Accelerated Climate Change Montezuma Wetlands 2015 Sears Point Wetlands 2015 Peter R. Baye Coastal Ecologist [email protected] Delta Science Program Brown Bag Lunch – February 17, 2016 Estuarine Wetland Restoration San Francisco Bay Area historical context ERA CONTEXT “First-generation” SFE marsh restoration • Regulatory permit & policy (CWA, (1970s-1980s) McAteer-Petris Act, Endangered Species Act • compensatory mitigation • USACE dredge material marsh creation national program; estuarine sediment surplus “Second-generation” SFE marsh restoration • Goals Project era transition to regional planning and larger scale restoration • Wetland policy conflict resolution • Geomorphic pattern & process emphasis 21st century SFE marsh restoration • BEHGU (Goals Project update) era: • Accelerated sea level rise • Estuarine sediment deficit • Climate event extremes, species invasions as “new normal” • advances in wetland sciences Estuarine Wetland Restoration San Francisco Bay Area examples ERA EXAMPLES First-generation SFE marsh restoration • Muzzi Marsh (MRN) (1970s-1980s) • Pond 3 Alameda (ALA) Second-generation SFE marsh restoration • Sonoma Baylands (SON) (1990s) • Hamilton Wetland Restoration (MRN) • Montezuma Wetlands (SOL) 21st century SFE marsh restoration • Sears Point (SON) (climate change) • Aramburu Island (MRN) • Cullinan Ranch (SOL) • Oro Loma Ecotone (“horizontal levee”) (ALA) • South Bay and Napa-Sonoma
    [Show full text]
  • Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan
    Wetlands and Water Resources, Inc. 818 Fifth Avenue, Suite 208 San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel 415.457.0250 Fax 415.457.0260 www.swampthing . org Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan April 19, 2010 Prepared for: Richardson Bay Audubon Sanctuary 376 Greenwood Beach Road Tiburon, CA 94920 In Partnership with: Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 Project No. 1145 Prepared in Collaboration with: Roger Leventhal, PE, FarWest Restoration Engineering Peter Baye, PhD Planning Assessment Design Implementation Applied Science This page intentionally left blank Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan 19 April 2010 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 HISTORY OF RICHARDSON BAY ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 HISTORY OF ARAMBURU ISLAND AND HARBOR SEAL HAUL‐OUT .................................................................................... 3 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND HABITATS ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SFBJV Active Projects, November 2019 Page 1
    SFBJV Active Projects, November 2019 Project Funding Needs Project Name County Description Acres Lead Rank 3-5 yr Alameda Creek Diversion Dam This project will reduce water diversions and construct a fish Alameda Creek Tier 1 Alameda NA $0 Fish Passage ladder and fish screens on the Alameda Diversion Dam. Alliance This project aims to restore a run of steelhead trout to Alameda Alameda Creek Fisheries Creek. Removal of barriers, improved flows, and other Alameda Creek Tier 1 Alameda NA $12,000,000 Restoration improvements will help support steelhead spawning and Alliance rearing and ultimately restore steelhead fisheries. This project will design and install a fish ladder on the northern Alameda County embankment of the flood control channel and Alameda County Alameda Creek Upper Rubber Water District, Tier 1 Alameda Water District's Rubber Dam No. 3. The fish ladder will help 0.1 $0 Dam No. 3 Fish Ladder Alameda Creek facilitate fish migration through the lower section of Alameda Alliance Creek. The East Bay Regional Park District is converting the former Naval Air Station for use as wildlife habitat and public East Bay Regional Alameda Point Restoration Tier 1 Alameda 660 $0 parkland. This project will extend access to restored shoreline Park District areas and will help support an endangered least tern colony. The project enhanced Albany Beach by arresting beach erosion and expanding dune and wetlands, and constructed wetland Albany Beach Restoration and and rain garden features to improve water quality. Current East Bay Regional Public Access Project - Tier 1 Alameda 3 $4,000,000 work includes completing a key segment of the SF Bay Trail, Park District McLaughlin Eastshore State Park expanding public shoreline access, and constructing visitor amenities.
    [Show full text]
  • Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan
    Wetlands and Water Resources, Inc. 818 Fifth Avenue, Suite 208 San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel 415.457.0250 Fax 415.457.0260 www.swampthing . org Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan April 19, 2010 Prepared for: Richardson Bay Audubon Sanctuary 376 Greenwood Beach Road Tiburon, CA 94920 In Partnership with: Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 Project No. 1145 Prepared in Collaboration with: Roger Leventhal, PE, FarWest Restoration Engineering Peter Baye, PhD Planning Assessment Design Implementation Applied Science This page intentionally left blank Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan 19 April 2010 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 HISTORY OF RICHARDSON BAY ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 HISTORY OF ARAMBURU ISLAND AND HARBOR SEAL HAUL‐OUT .................................................................................... 3 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND HABITATS ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cosco Busan Oil Spill NRDAR Focus on Aramburu: the Little Island That Could
    Cosco Busan Oil Spill NRDAR Focus on Aramburu: The Little Island that Could Janet Whitlock, Toby McBride, - USFWS Rachel Spadafore – Richardson Bay Audubon Center and Sanctuary San Francisco Bay • Largest Estuary on the Pacific Coast of North America • Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network Highest possible ranking – Home to close to 1 million shorebirds • Center for Biological Diversity: Nation’s 6 most important bio- diversity hotspots – Over 500 species of invertebrates and 500 species of vertebrates • Diverse and rich shoreline habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, fish, and other species Cosco Busan Oil Spill • November 7, 2007 – Cosco Busan container ship strikes San Francisco Bay Bridge – Releases 53,500+ gallons of Fuel Oil – 3,000 birds collected, over 100 miles of shoreline oiled Cosco Busan Oil Spill Golden Gate San Francisco Collision • Majority of impacts in the Central Bay • Oiling along outer coast from Pt Reyes in the north to Half-Moon Bay in the south Beach Disturbance and Wrack Removal Hot Water Washing Kirby Cove Albany Angel Island Stege Marsh Manual Cleaning and Vegetation Cutting Trampling and Removal NRDA Injuries • 6,800 birds estimated dead: 65 species – Primarily Diving ducks (Scaup and Scoter) – Cormorants, Common Murres, Grebes – T&E species - Snowy Plover and Marbled Murrelets also impacted • Estimated up to ~25% of 2007-08 herring spawn lost due to egg mortality from oil exposure • 3,300+ acres of shoreline habitat impacted • Over 1 million user days of human recreational uses (surfing, recreational fishing, beach use etc.) NRDA Restoration: $32.3 million • Lost Human Uses: $18.8 Million • Herring : $2.5 Million • Birds: $5 Million • Shoreline Habitats: $4 Million • T.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosco Busan Oil Spill: Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan
    Cosco Busan Oil Spill Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/ Environmental Assessment February xx, 2012 Prepared by: California Department of Fish and Game California State Lands Commission National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Bureau of Land Management This page left intentionally blank. Cosco Busan Oil Spill FINAL Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment February xx, 2012 Suggested Citation Cosco Busan Oil Spill Trustees. 2012. Cosco Busan Oil Spill Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment. Prepared by California Department of Fish and Game, California State Lands Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management. FACT SHEET Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / Environmental Assessment for the Cosco Busan Oil Spill Trustee Agencies: California Department of Fish and Game, California State Lands Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management. Abstract: The Natural Resource Trustee Agencies (Trustees) present a description and quantification of the injuries as well as the final selected restoration projects to compensate for the impacts of the Cosco Busan Oil Spill that occurred in San Francisco Bay on November 7, 2007. The spill affected wildlife (primarily birds and fish), habitat (primarily rocky
    [Show full text]
  • Infill Or Bay Fill?
    FROM THE DIRECTOR PROJECT TO PARTNERSHIP When is a project no longer a project but recognized as a large-scale collaborative effort expected to continue for years to come? That is S the question we asked ourselves a few months back. After discussions among the staff and the Implementation Committee, we have W become the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, to better reflect the real nature of our work. We are pleased to unveil our new name, logo, NE and newsletter look, and to recommit ourselves ESTUARYBay-Delta News and Views from the San Francisco Estuary Partnership | Volume 17, No.3 | June 2009 to protecting, restoring, and enhancing the resources of our beloved Estuary. INFILL OR BAY FILL? epending on whom you ask, the reincarnation of 1,433 acres of South Bay crystallizer ponds along the shores of Redwood City as a residential/recreational development with a wetland restoration component is either a spectacular example of new urbanist infill or poorly-timed Bay fill—and one Dof the largest Bay fills proposed in years. The proposal—known as the “Redwood City Saltworks”— by Cargill Salt and DMB Associates to build housing, along with soccer, baseball, football fields, and some One of our new collaborations is with River restored wetlands, has spawned two local ballot measures (both of which failed), and a raging debate over of Words (www.riverofwords.org), in which we the best use of these salt crystallizer ponds still owned and used by Cargill. The property was not included in sponsored a K-12 environmental art and poetry the public acquisition of the South Bay Salt Ponds in 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION and OPEN SPACE PLAN (SJMSCP) November 14, 2000
    SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN (SJMSCP) November 14, 2000 November 14, 2000 THIS PAGE BLANK November 14, 2000 Funding for this document was provided by a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation with assistance from the San Joaquin County Transportation Authority, the City of Tracy, and the City of Lathrop November 14, 2000 THIS PAGE BLANK November 14, 2000 SJMSCP STEERING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT HABITAT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Phillip Pennino, Chair City of Lodi Robert Cabral, Vice Chair San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors Ron Addington Business Dan Gifford/Robert Mapes/Dave Zezulak/Terry Roscoe California Department of Fish and Game Mitch Hayden U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waldo Holt Conservation William Lehman/Sheila Larsen/Peter Cross/Robert Pine/Ken Fuller/Mike Horton Cay Goude/Jan Knight/Ann Chrisney/Vicki Campbell/Jim Browning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brad Lange Agriculture Bruce Mettler Agriculture Tonie Marie Raymus Business Martha Shaver Land Trusts Steve Stocking Conservation Doug Unruh Business HABITAT STAFF WORKING GROUP Margit Aramburu Delta Protection Commission Luis Arismendi/Don Cose Business Mike Brown Aggregate Mining Ben Cantu Manteca Pam Carder Lathrop John Carlson/Mike Niblock Stockton Dan Gifford/Robert Mapes/Dave Zezulak/ Terry Roscoe California Department of Fish and Game Brian Millar/Barry Hand Tracy Mitch Hayden U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waldo Holt Conservation William Lehman/Sheila Larsen/Peter Cross/Robert Pine/Ken Fuller/Mike Horton/ Cay Goude/Jan Knight/Ann Chrisney/Vicki Campbell/Jim Browning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Peggy Keranen/Kitty Walker San Joaquin County Rad Bartlam/David Morimoto Lodi Dale Steele, Gina Moran Caltrans Ernest Tyhurst Ripon Julia E.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Marin Sewers: Cracks in the System May 5, 2009
    2008-2009 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Southern Marin sewers: Cracks in the system May 5, 2009 Southern Marin sewers: Cracks in the system SUMMARY Sewage spilling into San Francisco Bay is a news headline that grabs our attention. In January 2008, the Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin (SASM) released 2.4 million gallons of raw sewage on one day and another 962,000 gallons of partially treated sewage six days later. Since then, governmental orders have been issued, stiff fines imposed and operational failures corrected. But underlying problems persist beyond the headlines, and long-term solutions will require creativity, patience and cooperation. SASM operates one of six large public sewage treatment facilities in Marin County. There are another eight smaller ones. Each of those plants is publicly owned and operated within its own watershed area. There are at least 10 additional special districts that collect and transport sewage to their treatment plants. SASM is made up of six independent member districts. Each district owns and maintains a sanitary sewer collection system that transports untreated sanitary waste from homes and businesses to the SASM treatment plant. Five of the six SASM collection districts have their own five-member governing board. The sixth is governed by the City of Mill Valley. Each of the six districts has one seat on the SASM Board of Directors and has its own budget and staff. In addition, SASM itself has its own manager, staff and budget. All of this governance structure is combined to serve a grand total of about 28,000 residents in southern Marin County.
    [Show full text]
  • Suggested Citation: Harvey, A.L., A. Weinstein, K
    Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) Statewide Reproductive Performance in California in 2012-2014 A. Laurie Harvey1, Anna Weinstein2, Katherine Krieger2 and Liling Lee2 1Sutil Conservation Ecology, 30 Buena Vista Avenue, Fairfax, CA 94930 USA 2Audubon California, 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94104 USA FINAL REPORT Prepared for Audubon California 12 October 2017 Suggested citation: Harvey, A.L., A. Weinstein, K. Krieger, and L. Lee. 2017. Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) statewide reproductive performance in California in 2012-2014. Unpublished report submitted to Audubon California by Sutil Conservation Ecology. 66 pp. Cover photo courtesy of H. Ceja. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 6 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 7 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Overview of the 2012-2014 monitoring effort ............................................................................ 8 Table 1. Total linear kilometers of coastline surveyed in the six Black Oystercatcher monitoring regions in 2012-2014. ........................................................................................... 8 Figure 1. Overview map of Black Oystercatcher regional monitoring areas in California,
    [Show full text]
  • Suisun Marsh: California’S Largest Marsh and Its Connection to Suisun Bay
    Suisun Marsh: California’s Largest Marsh and Its Connection to Suisun Bay Stuart Siegel, San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, [email protected] Suisun Marsh supports many beneficial uses, centered around recreation (mainly hunting, fishing, wildlife observation) and resident and migratory species support. Covering 100,000 acres, Suisun combines 52,000 acres of diked wetlands managed mostly for waterfowl hunting, 22,000 acres of shallow bays and 3,000 acres of sloughs used for fishing and supporting numerous fish and wildlife species, 8,000 acres of tidal marsh supporting a variety of fish and wildlife species and several listed plant species, and 16,000 acres of surrounding uplands. Suisun is a core region supporting several listed fish species, both resident such as Delta and Longfin Smelt and migratory such as Chinook salmon. These beneficial uses face several challenges, most notably: salinity levels linked to Delta outflow, invasive aquatic and terrestrial species, water quality impairments from legacy and ongoing land uses, sea level rise and warming waters, and regional declines in sediment supply. Within Suisun, efforts are underway to improve duck club operations to improve impaired water quality, restore tidal marsh to restore fish, plant and wildlife habitats and their associated functions and services, the Regional Board is developing TMDLs to address water quality impairments, and SRCD coordinates wide-ranging improvements to diked wetlands to address beneficial uses and impaired water quality. Suisun also holds one of the region’s two National Estuarine Research Reserve sites – Rush Ranch – which provides a focal point for wetland-oriented applied research including listed species recovery and carbon sequestration.
    [Show full text]
  • Central San Francisco Bay Regional Sediment Management Plan
    Francisco Bay Central San Francisco Bay Regional Sediment Management Plan Funding for this portion of the San Francisco Bay Regional Sediment Management (RSM) program was provided by the Department of Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways; Coastal Sediment Management Working (CSMW) group; and the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) through the US Fish and Wildlife Service 1 Table of Contents Title Page I. Introduction 4 II. Embayments 9 III. Central Bay – Planning Reaches 10 IV. Basis of Understanding 33 V. Source of Sedime nt 38 VI. Central Bay Challenges and Opportunities 45 VII. The Plan 52 VIII. Recommendations IX. References 58 Appendices A Beach Erosion Areas of Concern Report B Economic Analysis of Recreation Assets of Beaches C Regulatory Setting D Outreach Plan 2 Figures Index Title Page Figure 1 . Central San Francisco Bay RSM Study Area 5 Figure 2. San Francisco Bay Drainage Pathway 8 Figure 3. San Francisco Bay sediment transport pathway 7 Figure 4. Central San Francisco Bay planning reaches 11 Figure 5. Central Bay watersheds and creeks 12 Figure 6. San Francisco Bay areas of fill 1998 (SFEI 1998) 13 Figure 7. Central Bay areas of fill 1998 (SFEI 1998) 14 Figure 8. San Francisco waterfront and sea wall 15 Figure 9. Central Bay land cover 15 Figure 10. Southern Marin Reach, Richmond San Rafael Bridge to Corte Madera 16 Figure 11 . Southern Marin Reach, Corte Madera to Sausalito 17 Figure 12. San Francisco Golden Gate North Reach 19 Figure 13. San Francisco Reach 21 Figure 14. San Francisco Bayside Reach 23 Figure 1 5. Richmond Reach 25 Figure 1 6.
    [Show full text]