DOCSLIB.ORG

2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 6/11/21 Environmental Review Site Locations (map) Treatment Methods Where: How: Herbicide Use: of Imazapyr Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering 01a Channel Mouth X Lower Channel (not including 01b X mouth) 01c Upper Channel X Alameda Flood 4 years with no 1 Upper Channel - Union City Blvd to Control Channel 01d invasive Spartina I-880 (2017-2020) 01e Strip Marsh No. of Channel Mouth X No Invasive 01f Pond 3-AFCC Spartina 2020 02a.1a Belmont Slough Mouth X X X 02a.1b Belmont Slough Mouth South X X X Upper Belmont Slough and 02a.2 X X X Redwood Shores 02a.3 Bird Island X 02a.4 Redwood Shores Mitigation Bank X 02b.1 Corkscrew Slough X X Steinberger Slough South, 02b.2 X X Redwood Creek Northwest 02c.1a B2 North Quadrant West X X 02c.1b B2 North Quadrant East X X 02c.2 B2 North Quadrant South X X 02d.1a B2 South Quadrant West X 02d.1b B2 South Quadrant East X 02d.2 B2 South Quadrant (2) X 2 Bair/Greco Islands 02d.3 B2 South Quadrant (3) X 02e Westpoint Slough NW X X 02f Greco Island North X X 02g Westpoint Slough SW and East X X 02h Greco Island South X X 02i Ravenswood Slough & Mouth X Ravenswood Open Space Preserve 02j.1 X (north Hwy 84) * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season. Additions and changes are regularly posted. Page 1 of 10 2 Bair/Greco Islands 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 6/11/21 Environmental Review Site Locations (map) Treatment Methods Where: How: Herbicide Use: of Imazapyr Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering Ravenswood Open Space Preserve 02j.2 X (south Hwy 84) Redwood Creek and Deepwater 02k X X X Slough 02l Inner Bair Island Restoration X Alameda Flood 1 Pond B3 - Middle Bair Island Control Channel 02m X Restoration 3 years with no 02n SF2 Invasive Spartina (2018-2020) 02o Central Bair 8/2-8/3 X 2 years with no 03a Blackie's Creek (above bridge) Invasive Spartina (2019-2020) 3 Blackie's Pasture 4 years with no 03b Blackie's Creek Mouth Invasive Spartina (2017-2020) Corte Madera Ecological Reserve 04a X X (CMER) College of Marin Ecology Study No invasive 04b Area Spartina 2020 04c Piper Park East X 2 years with no 04d Piper Park West Invasive Spartina (2019-2020) 04e Larkspur Ferry Landing Area X 04f Riviera Circle 6/4 (COI) X X Corte Madera 4 Creek Complex 04g Creekside Park 6/8 (COI) X X Upper Corte Madera Creek (Above 04h X X Bon Air Road) Lower Corte Madera Creek 04i 6/9 (COI) X X (between Bon Air Rd & HWY 101) Corte Madera Creek Mouth - North 04j.1 X X Bank Corte Madera Creek Mouth - South 04j.2 X X Bank 04k Boardwalk No. 1 (Arkites) 6/10 (COI) X 04l Murphy Creek X 05a.1 Mowry Marsh & Slough X X 05a.2 Calaveras Marsh 7/30 X X X * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season. Additions and changes are regularly posted. Page 2 of 10 Coyote 5 Creek/Mowry Complex 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 6/11/21 Environmental Review Site Locations (map) Treatment Methods Where: How: Herbicide Use: of Imazapyr Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering 05b Dumbarton/Audubon X X 05c.1 Newark Slough West X X 05c.2 Newark Slough East X X Alameda Flood 1 ControlCoyote Channel 5 Creek/Mowry 05d LaRiviere Marsh X Complex 05e Mayhew's Landing X 05f Coyote Creek- Alameda County X X 05g Cargill Pond (W Hotel) X 05h Plummer Creek Mitigation X 05i Island Ponds X 06a Emeryville Crescent East X Emeryville 6 Crescent 06b Emeryville Crescent West 7/29 X 07a Oro Loma Marsh-East 10/28-10/29 X X 7 Oro Loma Marsh 07b Oro Loma Marsh-West 10/28-10/29 X X 8 Palo Alto Baylands 8 Palo Alto Baylands X X X 9 Tiscornia Marsh 9 Tiscornia Marsh X 10a Whittell Marsh X 10b Southern Marsh X X Point Pinole 10 Marshes 10c Giant Marsh X X 10d Breuner Marsh X Southampton 11 11 Southampton Marsh X Marsh 5 years with no 12a Pier 94 invasive Spartina (2016-2020) 3 years with no 12b Pier 98/Heron's Head Invasive Spartina (2018-2020) 7 years with no 12c India Basin invasive Spartina (2014-2020) 4 years with no 12d Hunters Point Naval Reserve Invasive Spartina (2017-2020) Southeast San 12 Franciso * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season. Additions and changes are regularly posted. Page 3 of 10 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 6/11/21 Environmental Review Site Locations (map) Treatment Methods Where: How: Herbicide Use: of Imazapyr Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering Southeast San 12 12e Yosemite Channel X Franciso 6 years with no 12f Candlestick Cove invasive Spartina (2015-2020) 7 years with no Alameda Flood 1 12g Crissy Field invasive Spartina Control Channel (2014-2020) 7 years with no 12h Yerba Buena Island invasive Spartina (2014-2020) 7 years with no 12i Mission Creek invasive Spartina (2014-2020) 13a Old Alameda Creek North Bank X 13b Old Alameda Creek Island X 13c Old Alameda Creek South Bank X 13d Whale's Tail North Fluke X 13e Whale's Tail South Fluke X 13f Cargill Mitigation Marsh X Whale's Tail 13g Upstream of 20 Tide Gates 13 X Complex 13h Eden Landing-North Creek X No invasive 13i Eden Landing-Pond 10 Spartina 2020 13j Eden Landing-Mt Eden Creek X Eden Landing Reserve South- 13k X North Creek Marsh Eden Landing Reserve North- Mt 13l X Eden Creek Marsh Eden Landing - Pond E8A, E9, and 13m 8/2 X X E8X Charleston Slough to Mountain 15a.1 X View Slough 15a.2 Stevens Ck to Guadalupe Sl X 15a.3 Guadalupe Slough 15a.4 Alviso Slough X X South Bay 15 Marshes 15a.5 Coyote Creek to Artesian Slough X X 15a.6 Knapp Tract (Pond A6) X 15b Faber/Laumeister Marsh X * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season. Additions and changes are regularly posted. Page 4 of 10 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 6/11/21 Environmental Review SouthWhere: Bay Site Locations (map) How: Treatment Methods Herbicide Use: 15 of Imazapyr Marshes Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering 15c Shoreline Regional Park X Cooley Landing 16.1 Cooley Landing Central X X X 16 Salt Pond Restoration 16.2 Cooley Landing East X X X Alameda Flood 1 Control Channel Alameda Island South (Elsie 17a Roemer Bird Sanctuary, Crown X Memorial State Beach, Crab Cove) 17b Bay Farm Island X 17c.1 Arrowhead Marsh West 9/28-9/29 X X 17c.2 Arrowhead Marsh East WILL NOT BE TREATED IN 2021 MLK Regional Shoreline - Fan 17d.1 7/19-7/20 X Marsh Shoreline 17d.2 Airport Channel - MLK Shoreline 7/19-7/20 X 17d.3 East Creek -MLK Shoreline 7/19-7/20 X MLK Regional Shoreline-Damon 17d.4 X X Marsh Damon Sl/Elmhurst Cr - MLK 17d.5 7/19-7/20 X Shoreline Alameda/ 17e.1 San Leandro Creek North 7/19-7/20 X 17 San Leandro Bay Complex 17e.2 San Leandro Creek South 7/19-7/20 X 17f Oakland Inner Harbor X X 17g Coast Guard Island X 17h MLK New Marsh WILL NOT BE TREATED IN 2021 17i Coliseum Channels X 17j.1 Fan Marsh Wings X 17j.2 Fan Marsh Main WILL NOT BE TREATED IN 2021 17k Airport Channel 7/19-7/20 X X 17l Doolittle Pond 7/19-7/20 X Alameda Island East: Aeolian 17m X Yacht Club & Eastern Shoreline 3 years with no 18a Colma Creek invasive Spartina (2018-2020) * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season. Additions and changes are regularly posted. Page 5 of 10 Colma Creek/ 18 San Bruno Marsh Complex 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 6/11/21 Environmental Review Site Locations (map) Treatment Methods Where: How: Herbicide Use: of Imazapyr Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering 4 years with no 18b Navigable Slough invasive Spartina (2017-2020) 2 years with no 18c Old Shipyard invasive Spartina (2019-2020) Alameda Flood 1 7 years with no Control Channel 18d Inner Harbor invasive Spartina Colma Creek/ (2014-2020) 18 San Bruno Marsh Complex 18e Sam Trans Peninsula X 4 years with no 18f Confluence Marsh invasive Spartina (2017-2020) 2 years with no 18g San Bruno Marsh invasive Spartina (2019-2020) 18h San Bruno Creek X 19a Brisbane Lagoon X 6 years with no 19b Sierra Point invasive Spartina (2015-2020) 5 years with no 19c Oyster Cove invasive Spartina (2015-2020) 6 years with no 19d Oyster Point Marina invasive Spartina (2015-2020) 19e Oyster Point Park X 19f Point San Bruno X 3 years with no 19g Seaplane Harbor invasive Spartina (2018-2020) 19h SFO X X 19i Mills Creek Mouth X X West San 19 19j Easton Creek Mouth X X Francisco Bay 19k Sanchez Marsh 7/28 X X X X 19l Burlingame Lagoon X X 9 years with no 19m Fisherman's Park invasive Spartina (2012-2020) 19n Coyote Point Marina / Marsh X * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft WETA Redwood City Ferry Site Assessment Report 2012-07-09
    WETA Redwood City Ferry Terminal – Site Feasibility Report July 9, 2012 | DRAFT Report DRAFT DRAFT 2012-7-09 Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report July 9, 2012 | DRAFT Report Prepared for: Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Prepared by: KPFF Consulting Engineers Subconsultants: Coast & Harbor Engineering FMG Architects DRAFT Water Emergency Transportation Authority Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report DRAFT 2012-7-09 INTRODUCTION This Site Feasibility Report document sets forth preliminary assessment of existing site conditions in support of Planning Level Concept Design and Alternative Selection for a potential ferry terminal facility for the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) in Redwood City, California. The Preliminary Concept Design to date has focused on Site Assessment and Coastal Engineering. Many of the typical project costs are similar for different WETA terminal sites, but dredging and coastal conditions can result in significant costs that vary considerably between individual sites. Since these coastal conditions are critical to consider for project viability at the proposed site, initial design work and site investigation has focused on bathymetric survey and preliminary coastal analysis. The other major focus for preliminary design included coordination with project stakeholders and establishment of site definition, including preliminary understanding of landside/waterside boundary constraints for use in concept design. Stakeholders that participated in meetings with WETA and the design team included the Port of Redwood City, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), City of Redwood City and the San Francisco Bay Trail. General site design assumptions for the proposed Redwood City terminal are as follows: ° The site could serve as a ferry terminal for a passenger ferry route to downtown San Francisco or East-Bay (Oakland/Alameda).
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
    Redwood City New General Plan 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section discusses surface waters, groundwater resources, storm water collection and transmission, and flooding characteristics in the plan area. Key sources of information for this section include the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) prepared by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (January 2007), the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Redwood City (2005), and the Unified Stream Assessment in Seven Watersheds in San Mateo County, California by the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (August 2008), Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton Consulting Engineers Water, Sewer Storm Drainage Master Plan dated 1986, and Winzler & Kelly’s Bayfront Canal Improvement Project Design Development Alternative Analysis, dated December 2003. 4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Hydrologic Conditions The regional climate of the plan area is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. Average annual precipitation in the plan area is about 20 inches. About 80 percent of local precipitation falls in the months of November through March. Over the last century for which precipitation records are available, annual precipitation has ranged from an historic low of 8.01 inches in 1976 to an historic high of 42.82 inches in 1983.1 Surface Waters Figure 4.4-1 (in Section 4.4, Biological Resources) depicts surface water bodies in the plan area, which include Redwood and Cordilleras Creeks and their tributaries. Also shown are bay channels, including Westpoint Slough, Corkscrew Slough, northerly reaches of Redwood Creek, Smith Slough and Steinberger Slough, the Atherton Channel (Marsh Creek), and the Bay Front Canal.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Document
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 2. INTRODUCTION 6 3. HYDRODYNAMICS 8 3.1 Regional Setting ..........................................................................................................................8 3.1.1 Tides 8 3.1.2 Circulation 14 3.1.3 Residence Time 16 3.1.4 Wind-waves 17 3.1.5 Salinity 18 3.2 Project Setting ...........................................................................................................................20 3.2.1 Tributary Inflows 20 3.2.2 Salinity 22 4. SEDIMENT DYNAMICS 26 4.1 Regional Setting ........................................................................................................................26 4.1.1 Geological Evolution 26 4.1.2 Bathymetry 27 4.1.3 Sediment Transport 28 4.1.4 Sediment Budget 30 4.1.5 Spring Phytoplankton Bloom 30 4.2 Project Setting ...........................................................................................................................31 4.2.1 Tributary Sediment Load 31 4.2.2 Sediment Characteristics 32 4.2.3 Pond Bottom Elevations and Subsidence 32 4.2.4 Marsh Sedimentation 33 5. REFERENCES 36 6. LIST OF PREPARERS 42 TABLES Table 1 – Harmonic constants for San Francisco Bay 11 Table 2 – Harmonic constants for San Mateo Bridge, west side 12 Table 3 – Harmonic constants for Dumbarton Bridge 13 Table 4 – Approximate range in salinities expected for each type of pond management 24 Table 5 – Measured sedimentation data and MARSH98 SSC indices 34 South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project March 2005 Hydrodynamics and Sediment
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule
    2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 7/26/21 Environmental Review Site Locations (map) Treatment Methods Where: How: Herbicide Use: of Imazapyr Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering 01a Channel Mouth X Lower Channel (not including 01b X mouth) 01c Upper Channel X Alameda Flood 4 years with no 1 Upper Channel - Union City Blvd to Control Channel 01d invasive Spartina I-880 (2017-2020) 01e Strip Marsh No. of Channel Mouth X No Invasive 01f Pond 3-AFCC Spartina 2020 02a.1a Belmont Slough Mouth X X X 02a.1b Belmont Slough Mouth South X X X Upper Belmont Slough and 02a.2 X X X Redwood Shores 02a.3 Bird Island X 02a.4 Redwood Shores Mitigation Bank X 02b.1 Corkscrew Slough X X Steinberger Slough South, 02b.2 X X Redwood Creek Northwest 02c.1a B2 North Quadrant West 8/14 X X 02c.1b B2 North Quadrant East 8/24 X X 02c.2 B2 North Quadrant South 8/12-8/13 X X 02d.1a B2 South Quadrant West X 02d.1b B2 South Quadrant East X 02d.2 B2 South Quadrant (2) X 2 Bair/Greco Islands 02d.3 B2 South Quadrant (3) X 02e Westpoint Slough NW X X 02f Greco Island North X X 02g Westpoint Slough SW and East X X 02h Greco Island South X X 02i Ravenswood Slough & Mouth X Ravenswood Open Space Preserve 02j.1 X (north Hwy 84) * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit a Harbor Rules and Regulations
    EXHIBIT A HARBOR RULES AND REGULATIONS Thank you for choosing Westpoint Harbor as your “homeport” in the San Francisco Bay. Westpoint Harbor is a private marina complex established to provide a safe and comfortable haven for those who enjoy boating and water-oriented activities, or would like to. The following rules are for the safety and comfort of everyone, and are mostly restatements of government ordinances. The Harbor reserves the right to update lease rates as well as revoke permission to enter the facility at any time. This applies to members, guests and visitors. Owner agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and instructions of the U.S. Coast Guard and other Federal, State and Local authorities. “Owner” includes any person associated with the owner of a Vessel including family members, invitees, agents, employees and licensees on Harbor premises. We are concerned about the local marine environment and remind you that there are numerous Federal, State and Local regulations regarding discharge of any material into the Bay, including treated and non-treated sewage. All vessels are required to have a holding tank which is pumped out regularly. Any vessel found to have caused an improper discharge into the Bay will be asked to leave the Harbor. ON THE DOCKS 1. No running on the docks! Bicycles or scooters are not allowed on the docks, and no item may be placed or stored on the docks or walkways that could obstruct passage. 2. Mooring lines, water hoses and other dock connections shall be dressed to prevent obstruction or otherwise create a hazard.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Redwood City
    City of Redwood City Proposal for Ferry Financial Feasibility Study & Cost-Benefit and Economic Impact Analyses October 11, 2018 Acknowledgments City of Redwood City Council Members Project Team Diane Howard, Mayor Christopher Dacumos, Management Analyst II, City of Redwood City Shelly Masur, Vice Mayor Jessica Manzi, Transportation Manager, City of Alicia C. Aguirre, Council Member Redwood City Ian Bain, Council Member Radha Mehta, Management Fellow, City of Janet Borgens, Council Member Redwood City Giselle Hale, Council Member Kristine A. Zortman, Executive Director, Port of Redwood City Diana Reddy, Council Member Kevin Connolly, Planning & Development Port of Redwood City Commission Manager, WETA Arthi Krubanandh, Transportation Planner, Ralph A. Garcia, Chair WETA Richard (Dick) Claire, Vice Chair Chad Mason, Senior Planner & Project R. Simms Duncan, Port Commissioner Manager, WETA Richard “Dick” Dodge, Port Commissioner James Connolly, Project Manager, COWI Jessica Rivas, Marine Engineer, COWI Lorianna Kastrop, Port Commissioner Ashleigh Kanat, Executive Vice President, EPS San Mateo County Transportation Jason Moody, Principal, EPS Authority Kate Traynor, Senior Associate, EPS Jennifer Williams, Analyst II, San Mateo County Lindsey Klein, Project Planner, PlaceWorks Transportation Authority Charlie Knox, Principal, PlaceWorks Peter Skinner, Director of Grants and Funding, Bill Hurrell, Vice President, CDM Smith San Mateo County Transportation Authority Piyali Chaudhuri, Project Manager, CDM Smith Peter Martin, Project Technical
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 CENSUS - PUMA REFERENCE MAP: San Mateo County (East Central)--Redwood City, San Carlos & Belmont Cities 122.159566W
    37.576042N 37.580664N 122.346782W 2010 CENSUS - PUMA REFERENCE MAP: San Mateo County (East Central)--Redwood City, San Carlos & Belmont Cities 122.159566W LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL LABEL STYLE International CANADA PUMA Federal American Indian 00105 Reservation L'ANSE RES ALAMEDA 001 SAN MATEO 081 Off-Reservation Trust Land T1880 Alaska Native Regional Corporation NANA ANRC Public Use Microdata Area PUMA PUMA (PUMA) 00300 08103 Census Tract 183.01 Hillsborough State (or statistically equivalent entity) NEW YORK 36 County (or statistically equivalent entity) ERIE 029 Minor Civil Division (MCD)1 Bristol town Consolidated City MILFORD PUMA San Francisco Bay Incorporated Place 2 Davis Foster City 08104 Census Designated Place 2 Incline Village 92 (CDP) 92 Seal Slough DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL San Mateo Belmont Slough Interstate 3 Water Body Pleasant Lake U.S. Highway 2 Outside Subject Area State Highway 4 6103.03 Nonvisible Boundary or Feature Not Elsewhere Classified Where international, state, and/or county boundaries coincide, the map shows the boundary symbol for only the highest-ranking of these boundaries. Geographic areas outside the subject PUMA are labeled only as space allows. 1 MCD boundaries are shown in the following states in which some or all MCDs function as general-purpose governmental units: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
    [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]
  • NATURAL RESOURCES Introduction
    NATURAL RESOURCES Introduction Wildflowers on Bair Island Natural Resources Introduction Natural Habitat and Vision Open Space Water Resources Urban Forest Energy Conservation atural resources are all around us, whether it is the water running from our faucets or flowing through Redwood N Creek, the natural habitat where animals and birds forage for food, or the tall trees that shade our streets and cools us as we walk through a park. These resources contribute tremendously to the quality of life in Redwood City and allow residents to enjoy and experience features not found in many urban environments. We must take care as most natural resources are not replenishable. This Element focuses on preserving, protecting, conserving, re‐using, and efficiently using Redwood City’s natural resources. Redwood City General Plan Page NR-1 Introduction NATURAL RESOURCES Introduction Natural resources are the lands, minerals and fossil fuels, wildlife, plants and trees, air, water, groundwater, drinking water, and other resources Natural Resource Chapters: obtained from the Earth. Some resources are managed, such as trees Water Resources growing in a park or drinking water that is transferred via pipelines from Water Supply sources miles away. Other resources are meant to flourish through Water Conservation conservation, such as marine wildlife or the wetland grasses that thrive Recycled Water on Bair, Bird, and Greco Islands. Some resources are processed far away Water Demand to generate fuel to power our cars and homes. These resources share a common theme: they are meant to be conserved and protected, so that Energy Conservation future generations of Redwood City residents can continue enjoy the Renewable Energy Use high quality of life we know today.
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood City Salt Plant Jurisdictional Determination
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 March 1, 2019 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR R.D. James Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works U.S. Department of the Army 108 Army Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20310 Dear Mr. James: This letter transmits the Clean Water Act (CW A) jurisdictional determination for Redwood City Salt Plant site ("the Salt Plant"). On March 18, 2015, EPA designated the Salt Plant as a "special case," as defined by the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers regarding coordination on matters of geographic jurisdiction. Pursuant to the MOA, designation of the special case made EPA responsible for determining the extent to which the Salt Plant contained jurisdictional waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. After careful consideration of all relevant facts before the Agency in light of the applicable law and regulations, the EPA has concluded that the Salt Plant is non-jurisdictional fast land. EPA reached this conclusion considering the combination of circumstances at the Salt Plant, including the separation of the Salt Plant over a century ago from the surrounding waters, the federall y­ authorized excavating, filling, and industrial production and maintenance activities that have taken place at the Salt Plant since that time, and the use of water at the plant as merely a component of a highly engineered industrial operation. EPA's analysis is summarized in the enclosed determination document. EPA' s determination constitutes the position of the federal government on the CW A jurisdictional status of the Salt Plant, and its transmittal concludes the "special case" process.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Ridgway's Rail Survey Report
    California Ridgway’s Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2020 Report to: The State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1515 Clay St., 10th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared by: Olofson Environmental, Inc. 1001 42nd Street, Suite 230 Oakland, California 94608 Contact: [email protected] February 1, 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was designed and prepared under the direction of Jen McBroom, the Invasive Spartina Project Ridgway’s Rail Monitoring Manager, with considerable hard work by other OEI biologists and staff, including Brian Ort, Jeanne Hammond, Kevin Eng, Nate Deakers, Pim Laulikitnont, Simon Gunner, Stephanie Chen, Tobias Rohmer, Melanie Anderson, and Lindsay Faye. This report was prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Study Area ......................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Field Methods ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Data Management ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Water Quality Monitoring Report for 2014
    San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Water Quality Monitoring Report for 2014 Prepared by Drew Kerr Under contract to Olofson Environmental, Inc 1830 Embarcadero Cove, Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94606 www.spartina.org for the State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 February 2015 Acknowledgements Thanks to Leslie Bandy for collecting the majority of the water samples and data on conven- tional water quality parameters for the implementation of the 2014 Water Quality Monitor- ing Plan (WQMP), as well as preparing shipments to Pacific Agricultural Laboratory. The implementation of the WQMP and the preparation of this annual report were funded by the State Coastal Conservancy and the California Wildlife Conservation Board (MOU #99- 054-10 and subsequent). Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Invasive Spartina in the San Francisco Estuary ............................................................. 4 2.2 Invasive Spartina Project ............................................................................................... 5 2.3 Herbicides Utilized for Spartina Control ....................................................................... 6 2.4 NPDES Compliance .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]