DOCSLIB.ORG

Nearshore Linkages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nearshore Linkages Timeline MAY 2012 The San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: 2011 2012 2013 Nearshore Linkages Project Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Restoration efforts in San Francisco Bay will advance in of native vegetation, natural materials, and reinforcing rock Draft Design Project Summer 2012 as the San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: or shell for native shellfish settlement enhance habitat Final Design Development Nearshore Linkages Project is implemented. The overarch- values by creating new living space. The techniques also Permitting ing project goal is to analyze subtidal restoration increase connectivity of wetlands and deeper intertidal and Pre-project Monitoring San Rafael techniques and restore critical eelgrass and oyster habitat, subtidal lands while providing a measure of shoreline Bay Project Construction (Phase 1) while learning more about the potential physical benefits protection. The approach has been implemented primarily Post-deployment Monitoring (Phase 1) 2017 of biological reefs along the shoreline. An interdisciplinary on the East and Gulf Coasts, such as in the Chesapeake Pre-project Monitoring team of scientists will test the effectiveness of restoration Bay and along the Alabama-Mississippi coastline. Hayward Project Construction (Phase 1) techniques on subtidal habitat values and begin to evaluate Shoreline Post-deployment Monitoring (Phase 1) 2017 connectivity between submerged areas and adjacent tidal Living Shorelines and Climate Change Project Construction (Phase 2) wetlands and creeks. This type of work is new to San Adaptation Post-deployment Monitoring (Phase 2) 2017 Francisco Bay but will build on the lessons learned from The California Climate Change Adaptation Strategy other restoration efforts in the estuary and around the recommends the use of Living Shorelines as a potential Volunteer Opportunities nation. The pilot project will be conducted in two Contact Us adaptation method to reduce the need for engineered hard We welcome community volunteers to participate in locations: in San Rafael Bay and along the Hayward Project Manager: Marilyn Latta, shoreline protection devices and to provide habitat monitoring activities with the project. Please contact Project shoreline. Through frequent monitoring, information will [email protected], 510-286-4157 functions and values. The State Manager Marilyn Latta if you are interested. be generated about how the project can be scaled up to Science Lead: Katharyn Boyer, Coastal Conservancy Climate balance shoreline protection, environmental impacts, and Change Policy also recommends Literature Cited [email protected], 415-338-3751 habitat needs. 1 - Merkel, K.W. and Associates. 2003. San Francisco Bay eelgrass inventory. Living Shorelines to reduce erosion Submitted to Caltrans and NOAA Fisheries. Photo credits and trap sediment, allowing for 2 - Merkel and Associates, Inc. 2009. San Francisco Bay Eelgrass Atlas. October– .Lorenz & Avelar, www.Lorenz-Avelar.com November 2009. Submitted to California Department of Transportation and National .San Francisco State University, Romberg-Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies What is a Living Shoreline? buffering of tidal wetlands and Marine Fisheries Service. (Wim Kimmerer, Katharyn Boyer’s lab) Living Shoreline projects use a suite of bank stabilization migration of habitats. Both 3 - Merkel and Associates, Inc. 2004. Baywide eelgrass inventory of San Francisco Marin Rod and Gun Club and Berkeley Marina native oyster restoration and habitat restoration techniques to reinforce the shore- policies have a goal of improved Bay: Pre-survey Screening Model and Eelgrass Survey Report. Report to Projects (Robert Abbott, Jerry McEwen, Rena Obernolte) California Department of Transportation. .USGS (Susan de la Cruz) line, minimize coastal erosion, and maintain coastal estuarine habitat resiliency in the .ESA PWA (Doug George) 4 - Barrett, E.M. 1963. The California oyster industry. CDFG Fishery Bulletin 123: processes while protecting, restoring, enhancing, and future to cope with sea level rise 1-103. creating natural habitat for fish and aquatic plants and and other environmental changes 5 - Baker, P. 1995. Review of ecology and fishery of the Olympia oyster, This document was produced for the State Coastal Conservancy wildlife (NOAA Restoration Center). The term “Living related to climate change. Ostrealurida with annotated bibliography. Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. by ESA PWA, 2012 14, no.2, pp. 501-518 Shorelines” was coined because the approach provides living space for estuarine and coastal organisms. Strategic placement IslaIsla ArenaArena C O N S U L T I N G 12 . Native Oysters Ecological Engineers: Native oysters, by attaching to hard substrates, form beds Permitting Partners that increase living space for many other species, thus Eelgrass and Native Oysters promoting increased diversity and providing food for fishes and other inverte- The State Coastal Conservancy looked to other restoration Eelgrass brates. Historically, efforts for guidance about regulatory overview to bring Eelgrass is a foundation species that support diverse com- native Olympia Living Shorelines to San Francisco Bay. Project managers munities of invertebrates, fishes, and waterfowl and oysters were an provides attachment locations for algae and encrusting abundant and used a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) ecologically impor- invertebrates. Eelgrass is the most widely distributed to engage several federal and state agencies simultane- seagrass in the Northern Hemisphere and occurs along the tant part of the fauna Pacific Coast of North America from the Bering Strait to and fishery in West ously. Questions regarding bay fill, impacts to existing 4,5 lower Baja California. An estimated 3,400 km2 of seagrass Coast estuaries . wetlands, interference with navigation, and public access The popularity of the fishery that began in the 1850s and other habitat impacts and notices were addressed during the consultation resulted in the collapse of native oyster populations along process. the West Coast of the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The fishery was lost as were the key ecosys- tem services provided by native oysters. The project is being managed by the State Coastal Conser- vancy, in collaboration with funding partners including the Connecting the Pieces: Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Estuary San Francisco Bay Partnership, Wildlife Conservation Board, and NOAA Fisheries. Consultants leading the project include San Subtidal Habitat Goals Francisco State University, UC Davis, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, ESA PWA, ENVIRON, and The 2010 San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report Isla Arena Consulting. have been lost globally between 1879 and 2006, largely due (see www.sfbaysubtidal.org) recommends that the next to human activities. The risk to vital habitat has generated generation of projects consider the possibility of integrating Regulatory agencies for this project include the San much interest in slowing or reversing this trend. In the soft multiple habitat types to improve linkages among habitats Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board sediments of San Francisco Bay, eelgrass provides valuable and promote potential synergistic effects of different habitat ecological services, yet eelgrass beds cover less than 4,000 features on each other as well as associated fauna. In (RWQCB), US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), CA Dept acres, or approximately 1% of submerged land in the bay 1,2. addition, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project of Fish and Game (DFG), National Marine Fisheries Service Biophysical models estimate that nearly 30,000 acres of includes multiple wetland restoration sites, and project (NMFS), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development bottom area in San Francisco Bay may be suitable habitat3. leaders have expressed interest in the potential to integrate deeper habitats into the matrix of newly restored areas. Commission (BCDC), and State Lands Commission (SLC). San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals for Subtidal-Wetland Design Integration Science Goals Restoration Goals 1. Understand the ecosystem services supported by marsh 1. Explore the integration of upland, intertidal, and subtidal subtidal integration and living shorelines, and in what habitats in San Francisco Bay. quantities. 2. Integrate habitat flexibility to increase resilience in the face of 2. Develop best practices for integrating subtidal restoration long-term change at habitat restoration sites around the bay. with adjacent wetlands. 3. Explore the use of living shoreline projects as a way to 3. Develop best practices for pilot projects to create living achieve multiple benefits in the future. shorelines. 2 11 Potential Impacts Monitoring Living Shorelines in San Francisco Bay The small amount of disturbed habitat and the habitat- Before the project begins, bathymetric surveys are planned promoting nature of the project make it unlikely to adversely to establish baseline conditions. Other pre-project monitor- affect endangered and threatened species. Since the project is ing will include collecting sediment cores to assess benthic While not a new concept, Living Shoreline projects are new located offshore, no adverse impacts are expected for invertebrate species richness and density and observing bird, ^_ to San Francisco Bay, where pilot restoration work on non-aquatic species. Also, by design, recreational use
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Marin Islands NWR Sport Fishing Plan
    Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 3 SPORT FISHING PLAN 3 1. Introduction 3 2. Statement of Objectives 4 3. Description of the Fishing Program 5 A. Area to be Opened to Fishing 5 B. Species to be Taken, Fishing periods, Fishing Access 5 C. Fishing Permit Requirements 7 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State 7 E. Law Enforcement 7 F. Funding and Staffing Requirements 8 4. Conduct of the Fishing Program 8 A. Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures (if applicable) 8 B. Refuge-Spec if ic Fishing Regulat ions 8 C. Relevant State Regulations 8 D. Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Sport Fishing 8 5. Public Engagement 9 A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program 9 B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program 9 C. How Anglers Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations 9 6. Compatibility Determination 9 7. Literature Cited 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed Sport Fishing Area Fishing…………………………………6 Marin Islands NWR Fishing Plan Page 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SPORT FISHING PLAN 1. Introduction National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region
    Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region July 2009 Executive Summary Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. §1855(b)), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as the federal lead and co-lead agencies, respectively, submit this Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region. This document provides an assessment of the potential effects of the on-going dredging and dredged material placement activities of all federal and non-federal maintenance dredging projects in the action area (see Figure 1.1 located on page 3). The SF Bay LTMS program area spans 11 counties, including: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties. It does not include the mountainous or inland areas far removed from navigable waters. The geographic scope of potential impacts included in this consultation (action area) comprises the estuarine waters of the San Francisco Bay region, portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) west of Sherman Island and the western portion of the Port of Sacramento and Port of Stockton deep water ship channels. It also includes the wetlands and shallow intertidal areas that form a margin around the Estuary and the tidal portions of its tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • MARTIN GRIFFIN an Oral History Interview Conducted by Debra Schwartz in 2015
    Mill Valley Oral History Program A collaboration between the Mill Valley Historical Society and the Mill Valley Public Library MARTIN GRIFFIN An Oral History Interview Conducted by Debra Schwartz in 2015 © 2015 by the Mill Valley Public Library TITLE: Oral History of Martin Griffin INTERVIEWER: Debra Schwartz DESCRIPTION: Transcript, 37 pages INTERVIEW DATE: October 20th, 2015 In this oral history, physician, naturalist, champion of open spaces and bane of developers Martin Griffin recounts with warmth and humor his long and extraordinarily active life. Born in Ogden, Utah, in 1920 to nature-loving parents, Martin moved with his family to Portland, Oregon, when the Great Depression hit, and then down to Los Angeles and finally up to Oakland, where he attended elementary school through high school. Martin recalls some early experiences that shaped his love for the environment, including his involvement with the Boy Scouts, where he met the graduate student entomologist Brighton C. “Bugs” Cain, who profoundly inspired him. It was also as a boy that Martin came over to Mill Valley for the first time, making his way by ferry and train, to go hiking on Mt. Tamalpais. He conjures the beautiful vision he had from the ridge that day of white birds down on Bolinas Lagoon, a vision which made such a powerful impression on him and would, years later, feed the flames of his conservationist passion. Martin recounts being involved in ROTC while an undergraduate at U.C. Berkeley, later attending medical school at Stanford, where he got married, and moving over to Marin to begin his medical practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H Cultural Resources
    GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL APPENDIX H CULTURAL RESOURCES This appendix contains the following items: The Cultural Resources Existing Conditions and Survey Methodology Report and Archaeological Survey to support the assessment of the effects of the proposed project on historic properties. Documentation of coordination with tribal governments including the FAA’s government-to-government consultations with tribes in accordance with Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments and FAA Order 1210.20 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures. Documentation of the FAA’s consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that resulted in the FAA’s determination that the Gnoss Field Airport Runway Extension Project would have no effect on historic properties. Landrum & Brown Appendix H - Cultural Resources June 2014 Page H-1 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Landrum & Brown Appendix H - Cultural Resources June 2014 Page H-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY REPORT AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT For the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to Evaluate the Proposed Extension of Runway 13/31 at Gnoss Field Airport Marin County, Novato, California Dwight D. Simons, Ph.C and Kim J. Tremaine, Ph.C., RPA TREMAINE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 859 Stillwater Road, Suite 1 West Sacramento, CA 95605 November 6, 2009 Revised July 18, 2011 Submitted To Landrum and Brown, Inc. 11279 Cornell Park Drive Cincinnati, OH 45242 Page H-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CALENDAR ITEM Howe AUTHORIZE the PURCHASE with KAPILOFF
    CALENDAR ITEM A 9 61 03127190 '~ 3 W 24425 AD 117 Howe AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE WITH KAPILOFF LANO BANK TRUST FUNDS A PARCEL OF LANO KNOWN AS THE MARIN ISLANDS IN SAN RAFAEL BAY, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. MARIN COUNTY APPLICANT: State Lands Commission as trustee 9f the Kapiloff Land Bank Fund Staff of the California Coastal Conservancy, Marin Open ~pace District, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Stjte Lands Commission have been considering the purchase of tid~lands apd two islands known as the Marin Islands, located in San Rafael Bay, City of San Rafael, Marin County. These agencies will contribute one-half of the purchase price. It is proposed that the Commission contribute $500,000 toward this -~mount from the Kapiloff Land Bank Fund. Private funding_ will be raised to cover the remaining half of the purchase price. The subject parcel is approximately 339 acres: 32'6 acres are tideland lots located in the bed of San Rafael Bay. The tideland portion of the subjact property is presently unfilled and in a natural condition, and as such, ·remain an integral part of the overall San Francisco Bay estuarine ecosystem., The West Marin Island is 2.90 acres of open space used primarily for nesting purposes by a variety of waterfowl. This island is, uegetated with native grasses and small trees. Due to its isolated location and terrain, the island is a productive rookery For a variety oF water fowl visiting the Bay area. The island has been identified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as having the largest heron rookery in San Franci~co Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study: “Marin Countywide Plan” Alex Hinds
    Case Study: “Marin Countywide Plan” Alex Hinds Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Into Climate Action Plans & General Plan Updates September 13, 2010 Background & Motivation “Planning is best done in advance ” (Marin staff updates general plan every10+ years) CountywideCountywide PlanPlan PublicPublic OutreachOutreach && CommunityCommunity Participation:Participation: • Extensive public outreach and education • Guiding Principles & 4 Working Groups (2001- 2002) • 115 public meetings • Adopted Nov 6, 2007 In 2001 “Planning Sustainable Communities” was selected as the theme of Marin’s General Plan Update CWP Definition of Sustainability : Aligning our built environment and socioeconomic activities w/ the natural systems that support life Adapting human activities to the constraints and opportunities of nature Meeting the needs of both the present and the future Countywide Goals include: A Reduced Ecological Footprint Marin will increasingly use resources at a level similar to Western Europe A Community Safe from Climate Change Marin will be a leader in averting and adapting to all aspects of climate change Ecological Footprint Comparison (Global Footprint Network) 30.0 27.4 24.0 25.0 21.8 20.0 15.0 13.0 9.5 10.0 Acresper Person 5.0 3.1 2.5 0.0 Marin United Canada France Italy Chile Mexico County States How Does Marin’s Footprint Compare to Other San Francisco Bay Area Counties? (Global Footprint Network/Redefining Progress) Number of earths that would be required to serve the footprint of each S.F. Bay Area County: Climate Change: Promoting Climate Protection Joined ICLEI’s five step program in 2002: 1. Assessed Marin’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 2. Set target to reduce emissions 3.
    [Show full text]
  • By April Thygeson
    Color Page “The Voice of the Waterfront” April 2012 Vol.13, No.4 Opening Day on the Bay American Spirit at Annual Bash 40,000 Miles of Water World Racers to Stop in Oakland A Very Clean Marina Initiative Takes on Raw Sewage Complete Ferry Schedules for all SF Lines Color Page TASTING ROOM OPEN DAILY FROM 11AM TO 6PM TASTE, TOUR RELAX Just a short ferry ride across San Francisco Bay lies the original urban winery, Rosenblum Cellars. Alameda is our urban island with no pretension. Our tasting room is a true gem, with a rustic urban charm that attracts fans from around the world to enjoy the unique, relaxed atmosphere. TWO FOR ONE TASTING with this ad. $10 value www.rosenblumcellars.com 2900 Main St. Suite 1100 Alameda, CA 1-877-GR8-ZINS Please enjoy our wines responsibly. © 2011 Rosenblum Cel Alameda, CA www.DrinkiQ.com 2 April 2012 www.baycrossings.com columns features 05 WHO’S AT THE HELM? 12 OPENING DAY Captain Chuck Elles Catch the Spirit at 95th by Matt Larson Annual Celebration by April Thygeson 11 08 BAYKEEPER Clean Boat Repair Tips 14 GREEN PAGES guides by Deb Self Clean Marina Initiative Puts Brakes on Sewage WATERFRONT ACTIVITIES 22 Our recreational resource guide 09 SAILING ADVENTURES by Bill Picture The Marin Islands 24 WETA FERRY SCHEDULES by Captain Ray news Be on time for last call AROUND THE BAY 20 CULTURAL CURRENTS 04 511 Transit Info App 26 To see, be, do, know Destination: L.A. Debuts for Smartphones by Paul Duclos by Craig Noble ON OUR COVER 06 WATERFRONT NEWS Foreign Trade Drives April 2012 Volume 13, Number 4 Growth at Bay Ports Bobby Winston, Proprietor by Patrick Burnson Joyce Aldana, President Joel Williams, Publisher Patrick Runkle, Editor Around-the-World Racers ADVERTISING & MARKETING 10 Joel Williams, Advertising & Marketing Director to Make Stop in Oakland GRAPHICS & PRODUCTION Francisco Arreola, Designer / Web Producer AMERICA’S CUP ART DIRECTION 16 Francisco Arreola; Patrick Runkle; Joel Williams Final Agreement with S.F.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-Shore Linkages Project
    Final Report- Estuary 2100-2 “San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund” San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-shore Linkages Project Integrating Subtidal Habitat Restoration Projects to Increase Connectivity, Function, and Resiliency across Multiple Habitats in San Francisco Bay. July 10, 2015 Marilyn Latta, Project Manager, State Coastal Conservancy (510-286-4157, [email protected]) Contributors to this Report: San Francisco State University: Katharyn Boyer, Jen Miller, Cassie Pinnell, Julien Moderan, Stephanie Kiriakopolos and Kevin Stockmann University of California at Davis: Chela Zabin, Edwin Grosholz, Stephanie Kiriakopolos United States Geological Survey: Susan De La Cruz, Ashley Smith, Tanya Graham, and Laura Hollander ESA: Jeremy Lowe, Michelle Orr, Elena Vandebrook, Damien Kunz II. Table of Contents Executive summary of project goals and results……………………………………2-6 Progress in Addressing the Project’s Objectives…………………………………...6-11 Description of Project Components (substantive tasks)……………………………11-13 Partnerships…………………………………………………………………………13 Project Evaluation - Summary of monitoring results……………………………….13-18 Summary of Expected Outputs and Outcomes/Accomplished Deliverables………..17-18 Key messages, lessons learned and project implications……………………………18-19 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….20 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………..Attached II. Executive summary of project goals and results Introduction and project description The San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-shore Linkages Project is a multi-
    [Show full text]
  • Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals a Report of Habitat Recommendations
    Baylands Ecosystem Baylands Ecosystem Teams of Bay Area environmental scientists have assessed abitat Goals the past and present conditions of the baylands ecosystem and recommended ways to improve its ecological health. This report presents the Baylands Ecosystem Goals. Habitat Goals Habitat Goals H A Report of Habitat Recommendations Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project Db Deep Bay/Channel Basic Baylands Facts Sb Shallow Bay/Channel The baylands exist around the Bay between the lines of high and Tf Tidal Flat low tide. They are the lands touched by the tides, plus the lands that Tm Tidal Marsh the tides would touch in the absence of any levees or other unnat- Tp Tidal Marsh Pan ural structures. Lg Lagoon There are 73,000 acres of tidal baylands and 139,000 acres of diked Bc Beach/Dune baylands. Ag Agricultural Bayland There used to be 23 miles of sandy beaches. Now there are about Dw Diked Wetland seven miles of beaches. Most of the present beaches occur in differ- Sp Salt Pond ent locations than the historical beaches. St Storage or Treatment Pond There used to be 190,000 acres of tidal marsh with 6,000 miles of Uf Undeveloped Bay Fill channels and 8,000 acres of shallow pans. Now there are 40,000 Df Developed Bay Fill acres of tidal marsh with about 1,000 miles of channels and 250 Pr Perennial Pond acres of pans. Rw Riparian Forest/Willow Grove Only 16,000 acres of the historical tidal marsh remain. The rest of Mg Moist Grassland the present tidal marsh has naturally evolved from tidal flat, been Gr Grassland/Vernal Pool Complex restored from diked baylands, or muted by water control structures.
    [Show full text]
  • 1954 Engineers News
    . ·... - .... ~ -~- -~ . .. !--· .. ~ , . ; \ .OP ERATI:NG ENGINE'ERS .LOCAL l ·sTATIONARY ·ENGI·NEERS LOCA~ 39 .- . VOl. 12-No. 4 SAN fRANCISCO. • CALIFORNIA APRIL, 1954 Cdliforitia, NeVada Members- I. I ·E 8 ~ CD ti t r1 ry IS-. it Last Day to Register: In Calif.-- April 15; in NeYada, April 30 YO~ M~ ST ~ ~ Gg;) 'f g~ !?~~- tion for another term- by default of the v oters. · 1. F OM fwve fli'HHI' ed since yo1_1 knzt registered, er There are millions of people all You dffd fG.@f v ote i n the l ti.~st ge raetr e:li ele(;ticm, or ai:ound the world who would give their right a.rm to become Ameri­ 3. Y©u lwve duaru;:~d ;•oa~ r name ·or just come can citizens,. and you can be sure of ~ g e, or ,. the y would treas ure a right and ANOTHER ENGINEER JO~Th i s look-down view from high over a duty such as voting. They would the San Francisco Bay shows the . recently com pleted Texa.s Oil Com~ 4. r 024 have n~t registered in the state bef-ore. do a tiwusand · times more than pany plant at Richmond. A num ber of: Local 3 m en, worldng for vario1L1S. we !lo· as citizens .lust rfor the pre­ local firms, participated in m ost phases of construction on this n eMr We cannot sttess too strongly the importanc"e of all Oper­ cious ·right of citizenship. · pl~t. Picttire was taken by Bro. J im Jennings of Local 3. a:ting Engineers taking part in this year's vital elections, ana The rest of th'e world also is.
    [Show full text]