DOCSLIB.ORG

The San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines 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 habitats in San Francisco Bay. subtidal integration and living shorelines, and in what 2. Integrate habitat flexibility to increase resilience in the face of 2.quantities. Develop best practices for integrating subtidal restoration long-term change at habitat restoration sites around the bay. 3. Explore the use of living shoreline projects as a way to 3.with Develop adjacent best wetlands. 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 of
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]
  • Living Shorelines Along the Georgia Coast
    Living Shorelines along the Georgia Coast A summary report of the first Living Shoreline projects in Georgia September 2013 Living Shoreline Summary Report Georgia Department of Natural Resources One Conservation Way Brunswick, GA 31520 Project Manager: Jan Mackinnon Biologist GA-DNR Coastal Resources Division Prepared By: Greenworks Enterprises, LLC 7617 Laroche Ave Savannah GA 31406 September 2013 This report should be cited as: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Living Shorelines along the Georgia Coast: A Summary Report of the First Living Shoreline projects in Georgia. Coastal Resources Division, Brunswick, GA. 43 pp. plus appendix. -2- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Greenworks Enterprises under Cooperative Agreement # CD-96456206-0 to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Project Team responsible for the guidance, direction, and implementation of the living shorelines projects described in this document consisted of: Jan Mackinnon, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, Biologist; Christi Lambert, The Nature Conservancy, Georgia Marine and Freshwater Conservation Director; Dorset Hurley, Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve. Research Coordinator, Senior Marine Biologist; Fred Hay, GADNR: Wildlife Resources Division, Sapelo Island Manager; Sco Coleman, Ecological Manager, Lile St. Simons Island; Tom Bliss, University of Georgia Marine Extension Service;Conservancy; Alan Power, PhD, University of Georgia; These projects and this report have been made possible by their significant contributions and energies. The Project Team would like to thank all volunteers that made these Living Shoreline projects possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecologically Engineering Living Shorelines for High Energy Coastlines
    Ecologically engineering living shorelines for high energy coastlines Christine Angelini1, Ada Bersoza Hernandez1, Deidre Herbert1, Emily Astrom1, Patrick Norby1, Greg Kusel1, Scott Wasman1, Raymond Grizzle2, Nikki Dix Pangle3, Alex Sheremet1 1Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure & Environment, University of Florida; 2Jackson Lab, University of New Hampshire, 3Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve [email protected] Ocean ship traffic up 300% worldwide since 1990 Tournadre 2014, Geophysical Research Letters Large container ships & fishing vessels Boats Boats Boats Boats Boats Small boat traffic rarely monitored, but on the rise Ecological effects unknown Studies examining the effects of wakes on turbidity & wetland erosion Sorenson 1973; Zabawa & Ostrom 1980; Nanson et al. 1994; Osborne & Boak 1999;Castillo et al. 2000; Parnell & Kofoed- Hanson 2001; Bauer et al. 2002; Grizzle et al. 2002; McConchie & Toleman 2003; Glamore 2008; Houser 2010; Tonelli et al. 2010; Bilkovic et al. 2017 *Black text= primary literature/ Grey text = grey literature* Number of responses Experts in SE US indicate boat traffic in estuaries is high is estuaries in traffic boat US indicate in SE Experts Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) 3,000 miles of natural waterways & dredged channels Ponte Artery for commerce & recreation Vedra, FL Boat highway through low-energy coastal wetlands Mulberry Island, LA Little River, SC ICW ICW Palm Valley, Florida Wilmington, NC ICW ICW Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
    [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]
  • National Coastal Resilience 2019 Grant Slate - Updated October 2020
    National Coastal Resilience 2019 Grant Slate - updated October 2020 NFWF CONTACTS Erika Feller Director, Marine and Coastal Conservation [email protected] 202-595-3911 Kaity Goldsmith Manager, Marine Conservation National Coastal Resilience Fund [email protected] 202-595-2494 PARTNERS Brown pelican ABOUT NFWF The National Fish and Wildlife OVERVIEW Foundation (NFWF) protects and On Nov. 18, 2019, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), NOAA, Shell and restores our nation’s fish and wild- TransRe announced the 2019 grants from the National Coastal Resilience Fund. life and their habitats. Created by Forty-four new grants totaling $29,806,904 were awarded. The 44 awards announced Congress in 1984, NFWF directs generated $59,668,874 in match from the grantees, providing a total conservation impact public conservation dollars to of $89,475,778. the most pressing environmental needs and matches those invest- The National Coastal Resilience Fund restores, increases and strengthens natural ments with private funds. Learn more at www.nfwf.org wildlife. Established in 2018, the National Coastal Resilience Fund invests in conservation projectsinfrastructure that restore to protect or expand coastal natural communities features while such also as coastal enhancing marshes habitats and forwetlands, fish and NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1133 15th Street NW and barrier islands that minimize the impacts of storms and other naturally occurring Suite 1000 eventsdune and on beachnearby systems, communities. oyster and coral reefs, forests, coastal rivers and floodplains, Washington, DC 20005 202-857-0166 (continued) National Coastal Resilience 2019 Grant Slate Identifying Priority Restoration Sites for Resilience in Point Hope, Alaska Grantee: City of Point Hope Grant Amount: ...................................$215,137 Matching Funds: .................................$216,076 Total Amount .
    [Show full text]
  • Living Shorelines: a Review of Literature Relevant to New England Coasts Jennifer E.D
    Journal of Coastal Research 00 0 000–000 Coconut Creek, Florida Month 0000 REVIEW ARTICLES www:cerf-jcr:org Living Shorelines: A Review of Literature Relevant to New England Coasts Jennifer E.D. O’Donnell Department of Marine Sciences University of Connecticut Groton, CT 06340, U.S.A. jennifer.o’[email protected] ABSTRACT O’Donnell, J.E.D., 0000. Living shorelines: A review of literature relevant to New England coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, 00(0), 000–000. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Over the last few decades, increasing awareness of the potential adverse impacts of traditional hardened coastal protection structures on coastal processes and nearshore habitats has prompted interest in the development of shoreline stabilization approaches that preserve intertidal habitats or at least minimize the destructive effects of traditional shoreline protection approaches. Although many terms are used to describe shoreline stabilization approaches that protect or enhance the natural shoreline habitat, these approaches are frequently referred to as living shorelines. A review of the literature on living shorelines is provided to determine which insights from locations where living shorelines have proved successful are applicable to the New England shorelines for mitigating shoreline erosion while maintaining coastal ecosystem services. The benefits of living shorelines in comparison with traditional hardened shoreline protection structures are discussed. Nonstructural and hybrid approaches (that is, approaches that include natural or manmade hard structures) to coastal protection are described, and the effectiveness of these approaches in response to waves, storms, and sea-level rise is evaluated. ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Coastal protection, soft stabilization, natural and nature-based features.
    [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]
  • Living Shorelines Brochure
    Living Shorelines Benefit You By: Remember: • Reducing bank erosion and property loss to Living Shorelines you or your neighbor Any action on a single shoreline has the • Providing an attractive natural appearance potential to impact adjacent shorelines. An approach to shoreline • Creating recreational use areas management and erosion issues that Shoreline alterations • Improving marine habitat & spawning areas should be avoided is better for the environment and where they are not property owners • Allowing affordable construction costs really necessary. Offset (above) and straight gaps When erosion along • Improving water quality and clarity (below) maintain connections to a shoreline has the shoreline habitat and open water. potential to result in significant loss of property and upland improvement, then the consideration of shoreline erosion pro- tection activities may be appropriate. Preserving, creating or enhancing natural systems such as marshes, beaches and dunes is always the preferred approach Medium energy eroding marsh before (above) to shoreline erosion and after living shoreline treatment (below). protection. “Preserving one shoreline at a time” our coasts Photos of Hermitage Site by Walt Priest Project funded by the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program of the Department of Environmental Quality through Grant #NA07NOS4190178 Task #94.02 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration For more information: www.vims.edu/ccrm/ outreach/living_shorelines Visit our Website: Center for Coastal Resources Management vims.edu/ Virginia Institute of Marine Science Have a question about www. ccrm/outreach/ P.O. Box 1346 your living shoreline? living_shorelines Gloucester Pt., VA 23061-1346 Email: [email protected] 804-684-7380 Living Shorelines Overview Concern Services Design Site Specs Virginia has nearly 5,000 Living shorelines provide Several design options Several site characteristics miles of shoreline, marsh- valuable ecological servic- (see below) exist for living can be used to evaluate es, beaches, and tidal mud- es.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Living Shorelines?
    1 A Community Resource Guide for Planning Living Shorelines Projects New Jersey Resilient Coastlines Initiative Ver 1 (March 2016) CONNECTING YOUR COMMUNITY TO LIVING SHORELINES The Community Resource Guide provides community leaders, citizens, and contractors with guidance on key factors that should be considered when embarking on a living shoreline project and links to additional resources that could be consulted during the planning process. This guide is best used as a companion to The Nature Conservancy’s Coastal Resilience Tool and the Restoration Explorer, an associated web-based application that allows users to visualize which living shoreline techniques are most appropriate for reducing erosion in a particular area of New Jersey’s coastline. IMPORTANT: Living shoreline projects have a variety of ecological and engineering requirements that can often be combined to tailor project designs to local conditions. It is important to consult with ecologists and engineers to determine the specific design requirements for any proposed project. It is also important to consult with federal, state and local officials regarding permitting requirements. Resources are listed throughout this guide. In addition, the Restoration Explorer application is not intended to provide rigid recommendations but rather to support initial collaborative discussions about Installing an oyster castle breakwater in the Delaware Bay. © The Nature Conservancy implementing a living shoreline project. This guide provides summary information and additional resources
    [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]