DOCSLIB.ORG

Richardson Bay Shoreline Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Richardson Bay Shoreline Study Richardson Bay Shoreline Study Evaluation of Sea Level Rise Impacts and Adaptation Alternatives ***PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT*** October 14, 2015*** This project was funded through the Marin County Watershed Program and was prepared by: Roger Leventhal, P.E. Senior Engineer Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 304 San Rafael, CA 93913 (415) 473-3249 [email protected] with help from Sam Veloz and Nathan Eliot Point Blue Conservation Science 3820 Cypress Drive #11 Petaluma, CA 94954 Liz Lotz, Resource GIS Specialist County of Marin Lisa Owens-Viani, Technical Editor i CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 2.0 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE ................................................................. 3 2.1 GOALS OF THE STUDY .............................................................................. 5 2.2 RICHARDSON BAY .................................................................................... 6 3.0 ASSESSING IMPACTS OF DIRECT SHORELINE FLOODING FROM RICHARDSON BAY ............................................................................ 11 3.1 MAJOR EXISTING SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE .................................. 11 3.2 RICHARDSON BAY SHORELINE REACHES .............................................. 12 3.3 MAJOR ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND CLIMATE CHANGE .................................................................................................. 15 3.4 RATES OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY.............................. 18 3.5 DEVELOPMENT OF SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS FOR STUDY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 20 3.6 APPROACHES TO MAPPING IMPACTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE ..................... 25 4.0 TOOLBOX OF Adaptation ALTERNATIVES ......................................... 27 4.1 WHAT IS A “REASONABLE AND POTENTIALLY EFFECTIVE” FLOOD PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE? .................................................................. 27 4.2 PERMITTING AND REGULATORY ISSUES ................................................ 28 4.3 FLOOD REDUCTION TOOLS FOR DIRECT BAY COASTAL (TIDAL) FLOODING .............................................................................................. 29 5.0 SHORELINE FLOODING INUNDATION UNDER CURRENT AND FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS ............................................................ 55 5.1 SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO RESULTS - INUNDATION EXTENT AND DEPTH .................................................................................................... 55 5.2 IMPACTS ASSESSMENT BY SHORELINE REACH ..................................... 65 6.0 DIRECT COASTAL FLOOD REDUCTION ALIGNMENTS UNDER SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS ................................................................... 87 6.1 DECIDE WHERE TO “LIMIT THE TIDES” – THE LIMIT OF DIRECT COASTAL FLOODING (LDCF) ALIGNMENT ............................................................... 87 6.2 EVALUATE ADAPTATION OPTIONS .......................................................... 88 6.3 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS ....................................... 89 6.4 CONCEPT LEVEL COST ESTIMATES ...................................................... 143 6.5 SUMMARY OF COSTS ............................................................................ 162 7.0 CONCLUSION: PERSPECTIVE ON THE FUTURE OF FLOODING AND FLOOD PROTECTION ALONG THE SHORELINE ................................ 171 7.1 NEXT STEPS .......................................................................................... 171 8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................. 175 TABLES Table 1. Values of Projected Sea Level Rise and Standard Deviation (From NRC 2012). ......................................................................................................... 21 Table 2. Proposed Sea Level Rise (SLR) Projection Scenarios For Inundation Assessments................................................................................................ 23 Table 3. Barrier Top Design Elevation Alternatives. ............................................. 32 Table 4. Summary of Flooded Areas by Sea Level Rise (SLR) Scenario Assuming No Adaptation/Mitigation Measures. ................................................................. 62 Table 5. Facilities Potentially Flooded Under Different Levels of Sea Level Rise (SLR), Assuming No Adaptation.................................................................... 64 Table 6. Estimated Value Of Properties And Buildings Impacted Under Different Levels Of Sea Level Rise Based On Tax Assessor Values. .............................. 65 Table 7. Reach 1 Alignment Lengths. .................................................................. 94 Table 8. Reach 2 Alignment Lengths. .................................................................. 96 Table 9. Reach 3 Alignment Lengths. .................................................................. 98 Table 10. Reach 4 Barrier Lengths. .................................................................. 100 Table 11. Reach 5 Barrier Lengths. .................................................................. 101 Table 12. Reach 6 Barrier Lengths. .................................................................. 102 Table 13. Richardson Bay Entrance Tide Barrier Lengths. ................................ 108 Table 14. Reference Costs for Large Tidal Barriers. ........................................... 109 Table 15. Reach 1 Barrier Lengths. .................................................................. 114 Table 16. Reach 1, Marine City to Coyote Creek (60 Inch Sea Level Rise). .......... 115 Table 17. Reach 2, Coyote Creek-Bothin Marsh Barrier Lengths (36 Inch Sea Level Rise). ......................................................................................................... 120 iii Table 18. Reach 2, Coyote Creek-Bothin Marsh (60 Inch Sea Level Rise). .......... 121 Table 19. Reach 3, Mill Valley West (36 Inch Sea Level Rise). ............................ 129 Table 20. Reach 3, Mill Valley West (60 Inch Sea Level Rise). ............................ 131 Table 21. Reach 4, Mill Valley East (36 Inch Sea Level Rise). ............................. 134 Table 22. Reach 4, Mill Valley East (60 Inch Sea Level Rise). ............................. 134 Table 23. Reach 5, Seminary Marsh (36 Inch Sea Level Rise). ........................... 135 Table 24. Reach 5, Seminary Marsh (60 Inch Sea Level Rise). ........................... 136 Table 25. Reach 6, Strawberry Peninsula (36 Inch Sea Level Rise). .................... 137 Table 26. Reach 6, Strawberry Peninsula Barrier Lengths. ................................ 138 Table 27. Reach 7, Strawberry Circle-Greenwood Cove (36 Inch Sea Level Rise). 142 Table 28. Strawberry Circle-Greenwood Cove Barrier Lengths. .......................... 143 Table 29. Summary of Potential Right Of Way Costs with 12 Inch Sea Level Rise. ................................................................................................................. 148 Table 30. Summary Of Potential Right Of Way Costs With 36 Inch Sea Level Rise. ................................................................................................................. 149 Table 31. Summary of Potential Right Of Way Costs With 60 Inch Sea Level Rise. ................................................................................................................. 150 Table 32. Estimated Design And Permitting Costs For Reaches 1-3. .................. 152 Table 33. Design And Permitting Cost Estimates For Reaches 4-7 With 12 Inch Sea Level Rise. ................................................................................................. 153 Table 34. Design And Permitting Costs for selected Alignments of Reaches 4-7 For 36 Inch Sea Level Rise. .............................................................................. 154 Table 35. Concept Level Construction Cost Estimates For Large Tide Gate Structures. ................................................................................................ 154 Table 36. Unit Capital Costs For 12 Inch Sea Level Rise Alternatives. ................ 156 Table 37. Unit Capital Costs For 36 Inch Sea Level Rise Alternatives. ................ 157 Table 38. Unit Capital Costs For 60 Inch Sea Level Rise Alternatives. ................ 158 Table 39. Summary of Concept Level Construction Cost Estimates For 12 Inch Sea Level Rise. ................................................................................................. 159 Table 40. Concept Level Construction Cost Estimates For 36 Inch Sea Level Rise. ................................................................................................................. 160 Table 41. Concept Level Construction Cost Estimates For 60 Inch Sea Level Rise. ................................................................................................................. 161 Figures Figure 1: Richardson Bay Reach Delineation Map. .............................................. 13 Figure 2: Projected Range Of Sea Level Rise by Year for Various Studies (From NRC 2012). ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3: Concrete Floodwall. ............................................................................. 33 Figure 4: Sheet Pile Wall. ..................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Dunphy Park / Cass Gidley Marina
    1 San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Site Description for Dunphy Park / Cass Gidley Marina Location, Ownership, and Management: Dunphy Park is a shoreline park owned and managed by the City of Sausalito. The small beach within the park has long served as a popular launch for paddling on Richardson Bay, to Angel Island, and beyond. The historic Cass Gidley Marina is located along the northern side of the park. Dunphy Park is currently undergoing major renovations anticipated to be completed in 2020. Similarly, the Cass Gidley Marina is being redeveloped into the Sausalito Community Boating Center, which will provide access for paddlers and programs for small sailing craft. Contact Name: Mike Langford, Parks and Recreation Director Contact Phone: (415) 289-4126 Contact E-mail: [email protected] Dunphy Park Beach (2019) Dunphy Park Beach (2005) Cass Gidley Marina Facility Description: The non-motorized small boat (NMSB) community has long used the beach at Dunphy Park for launching and landing. Historically, users would park in the unpaved parking area and use adjacent lawn areas to laydown equipment before launching from the small beach. Dunphy Park is currently being redesigned (Fall 2019), which will include improved water access facilities. As part of the Dunphy Park redesign, an ADA ramp and path of travel for beach access will be installed. Steps down to the shoreline will also be provided adjacent to the ramp. Additionally, new ADA restrooms will replace existing portables and parking will be reconfigured to expand capacity and allow better flow. A boat washdown and drinking fountain will also be installed.
    [Show full text]
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf
    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
    [Show full text]
  • Bothin Marsh 46
    EMERGENT ECOLOGIES OF THE BAY EDGE ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE CMG Summer Internship 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Research Introduction 2 Approach 2 What’s Out There Regional Map 6 Site Visits ` 9 Salt Marsh Section 11 Plant Community Profiles 13 What’s Changing AUTHORS Impacts of Sea Level Rise 24 Sarah Fitzgerald Marsh Migration Process 26 Jeff Milla Yutong Wu PROJECT TEAM What We Can Do Lauren Bergenholtz Ilia Savin Tactical Matrix 29 Julia Price Site Scale Analysis: Treasure Island 34 Nico Wright Site Scale Analysis: Bothin Marsh 46 This publication financed initiated, guided, and published under the direction of CMG Landscape Architecture. Conclusion Closing Statements 58 Unless specifically referenced all photographs and Acknowledgments 60 graphic work by authors. Bibliography 62 San Francisco, 2019. Cover photo: Pump station fronting Shorebird Marsh. Corte Madera, CA RESEARCH INTRODUCTION BREADTH As human-induced climate change accelerates and impacts regional map coastal ecologies, designers must anticipate fast-changing conditions, while design must adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. With this task in mind, this research project investigates the needs of existing plant communities in the San plant communities Francisco Bay, explores how ecological dynamics are changing, of the Bay Edge and ultimately proposes a toolkit of tactics that designers can use to inform site designs. DEPTH landscape tactics matrix two case studies: Treasure Island Bothin Marsh APPROACH Working across scales, we began our research with a broad suggesting design adaptations for Treasure Island and Bothin survey of the Bay’s ecological history and current habitat Marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • Latitude 38'S Guide to Bay Sailing
    MayCoverTemplate 4/21/09 9:51 AM Page 1 Latitude 38 VOLUME 383 May 2009 WE GO WHERE THE WIND BLOWS MAY 2009 VOLUME 383 BAYGUIDE SAILING TO BAY SAILINGGUIDE Is there anyone out there who's worth of learning the hard way into one and is worth a pass. Stay in the channel not feeling the pinch of the recession? grand tour of the Bay done in style and though, as the northeast side is shallow We doubt it. And yes, many are feeling comfort. We call it the The Perfect Day- and the bottom is riddled with debris. more than a pinch. We're reminded of sail, and it goes like this... Sailing back out the Sausalito Chan- the advice of Thomas Jefferson: "When Start anywhere east of Alcatraz about nel, hug the shoreline and enjoy the you get to the end of your rope, tie a 11 a.m., at which time the fog is begin- Mediterranean look of southern Sau- knot and hang on!" ning to burn off and a light breeze is fill- salito. Generally, the closer you stay to Speaking of ropes and knots and ing in. You're going to be sailing coun- this shore, the flukier the wind — until hanging on, while the 'suits' rage from terclockwise around the Bay, so from you get to Hurricane Gulch. It's not shore while the economy struggles to Alcatraz, head around the backside of marked on the charts, but you'll know extricate itself from the tarpit — we Angel Island and sail west up Raccoon when you're there.
    [Show full text]
  • HABITAT TYPE and ASSOCIATED BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES – Shellfish Beds Sculpins, Rockfish, Perch and Herring
    HABITAT TYPE AND ASSOCIATED BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES – Shellfish Beds sculpins, rockfish, perch and herring. Hard substrates are arenaria. Sutton (1978) also delineated beds of the rough an important feeding habitat for harbor seals, including piddock (Zirfaea pilsbryi), a native clam that bores into from the Golden Gate east to Treasure Island, northwest soft rock or clays, as a potential species for sport harvest, to Tiburon Peninsula, and southward to Yerba Buena and suggested that there may be significant subtidal beds Island (Goals Project 2000, Green et al. 2006). Also, of the native bentnose clam (Macoma nasuta), which was many harbor seal haul-out sites are located in close commonly harvested by Native Americans. Some studies proximity to subtidal hard substrate including Point refer in passing to beds of the exotic freshwater Asiatic Bonita, Castro Rocks, Yerba Buena Island, and Angel clam (Corbicula fluminea; harvested for food or bait), Island (Goals Project 2000). Sea lions also feed in deep, native California mussel (Mytilus californianus), bay marine waters of San Francisco Bay; however, they feed mussel (consisting of the native M. trossulus, the exotic M. mostly on seasonally abundant herring associated with galloprovincialis, and their hybrids), exotic ribbed hard structures and eel grass beds in the Central Bay, and horsemussel (Geukensia demissa), native ghost shrimp on spawning salmonids that are migrating up the Bay (Neotrypaea californica), and the blue mud shrimp across multiple habitats to freshwater tributaries. Pacific (Upogebia pugettensis). Jones & Stokes (1977) and Sutton herring is a major prey item for many marine mammal (1978) implied that the ribbed horsemussel might be a species that are drawn to the Bay, including harbor sport-harvested species in the San Francisco Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Marin Conservation League Walk Into
    This park receives supportMarin in part Conservation from a nonprofit League organization. For further information, contact: Marin State Park Association WalkP.O. Box 223, Into Inverness, (Conservation) CA 94937 History #11 China Camp State Park Saturday, May 5, 2012 Marin Conservation League 1623–A Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 415.485.6257 marinconservationleague.org Marin Conservation League was founded in 1934 to preserve, protect and enhance the natural assets of Marin County. Marin Conservation League Walk Into (Conservation) History # 11 CHINA CAMP STATE PARK MAY 5, 2012 – 9:30 to 1:00 Today’s Walk As early as 1957, a state report Walk Leaders: had recognized that “this area Our walk begins at the north kiosk Yvonne Brown, Friends of China Camp (should) be included in the State entrance to the Park and parking Park System to meet existing and lot for Back Ranch Meadows Louise Kanter Lipsey, Community Activist future pubic needs.” That report camping area. We will follow the Kathy Cuneo, Ph. D., Botanist suggested a park of 2,700 acres, Shoreline Trail that ascends slightly Nona Dennis, Marin Conservation League with 6 miles of shoreline on San and then follows the contour in Rafael and San Pablo Bays. In and out of the wooded canyons of 1970, the Association of Bay Area San Pedro Ridge, crosses the Back how to help the Friends of China into public ownership only with a governments (ABAG) proposed Ranch Fire Road, and loops back Camp keep the Park open against huge collaborative citizen effort a greenbelt plan that called for to the south side of parking area.
    [Show full text]
  • Processing the Angel Island State Park Collection: Explorations Of
    PROCESSING THE ANGEL ISLAND STATE PARK COLLECTION: EXPLORATIONS OF NATIONALISM, MEMORY, AND PLACE A Project Presented to the faculty of the Department of History California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History (Public History) by Margo E. Lentz-Meyer SPRING 2016 © 2016 Margo E. Lentz-Meyer ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii PROCESSING THE ANGEL ISLAND STATE PARK COLLECTION: EXPLORATIONS OF NATIONALISM, MEMORY, AND PLACE A Project by Margo E. Lentz-Meyer Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Lee Simpson, Ph.D. __________________________________, Second Reader Lola M. Aguilar ____________________________ Date iii Student: Margo E. Lentz-Meyer I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project. __________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________ Patrick Ettinger, Ph.D. Date Department of Public History iv Abstract of PROCESSING THE ANGEL ISLAND STATE PARK COLLECTION: EXPLORATIONS OF NATIONALISM, MEMORY, AND PLACE by Margo E. Lentz-Meyer The Angel Island State Park Collection, located at the California State Parks Archives is comprised of documentary material recording the history of Angel Island prior to and following the islands designation as a state park. Processing the Angel Island State Park Collection involved arrangement and description, the creation of a finding aid, and the digitization of reports, histories, and photographs. The project culminated in the creation of two small exhibits highlighting significant aspects of the collection. _______________________, Committee Chair Lee Simpson, Ph.D. _______________________ Date v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Lola Aguilar for her guidance and advice throughout my time in the program and supporting my thesis project of processing the Angel Island State Park Collection.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Bay Area Boardsailing Plan September 2019
    DRAFT Bay Area Boardsailing Plan September 2019 Prepared by January 2019 sfbaywatertraia l.org ~ #sfbaywatertrail 9 1 0 2 y r ua n a J January 2019 DRAFT - Bay Area Boardsailing Plan DRAFT - Bay Area Boardsailing Plan Boat support provided by John Von Tesmar Von John by provided support Boat Lund Jeremy Rider: Loscocco Erin by image Cover 9 1 0 2 y r ua n a J DRAFT - Bay Area Boardsailing Plan September 20, 2019 Attn: Interested Parties Subject: Bay Area Boardsailing Plan Dear Interested Parties: The San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail (Water Trail) and the San Francisco Boardsailing Association (SFBA) are pleased to present the Bay Area Boardsailing Plan for consideration by the boardsailing community, shoreline site owners/managers, planners and landscape architects, agency staff and decision-makers, and everyone else interested in the provision of safe and sustainable water access to San Francisco Bay. The Water Trail and SFBA hope that this plan provides useful information and recommendations for interested parties and stakeholders to consider as part of pending development projects, long range planning efforts, and shoreline use management. The Water Trail and SFBA are committed to working with all parties in a cooperative manner to advance the planning for and development of the proposed water access improvements set forth in this plan. In particular, we would like reviewers to consider the following: • San Francisco Bay is one of the world’s premier boardsailing locations due to the consistent winds that occur March through September
    [Show full text]
  • Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan
    Wetlands and Water Resources, Inc. 818 Fifth Avenue, Suite 208 San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel 415.457.0250 Fax 415.457.0260 www.swampthing . org Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan April 19, 2010 Prepared for: Richardson Bay Audubon Sanctuary 376 Greenwood Beach Road Tiburon, CA 94920 In Partnership with: Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 Project No. 1145 Prepared in Collaboration with: Roger Leventhal, PE, FarWest Restoration Engineering Peter Baye, PhD Planning Assessment Design Implementation Applied Science This page intentionally left blank Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan 19 April 2010 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 HISTORY OF RICHARDSON BAY ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 HISTORY OF ARAMBURU ISLAND AND HARBOR SEAL HAUL‐OUT .................................................................................... 3 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND HABITATS ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 'Richardson 'Ba:Y Ijjocf and 'Boat Stud:Y
    'Richardson 'Ba:y IJJocf and'Boat Stud:y The Cumulative Effects of Dock Development and Boat Traffic on Wildlife and the Richardson Bay Wildlife Sanctuary Adopted by the Marin County Board of Supervisors on October 31, 2000. Prepared for The County of Marin by Greg R. Zitney Zitney & Associates October 2000 Richardson Bay Dock and Boat Study FOREWORD This report has been prepared pursuant to a contract with the County of Marin by Greg R. Zitney of Zitney & Associates. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent official County position or policy with regard to the topics addressed. Staff of the Marin County Community Development Agency contributed to this study by completing the inventory of existing and potential dock sites, preparing maps for the report, and reviewing report drafts. The Study is intended to be used as an informational document which focuses on the potential for biological and cumulative impacts from the buildout of dock facilities in the study area. The recommendations contained in the Study are intended to be advisory in nature and do not extinguish, make non-conforming, or eliminate any property owner's legal rights to construct new boat docks, to rebuild pre-existing dock facilities, or to use and enjoy navigational easements. Recommendations contained in this report are applicable only to the extent that they are within the jurisdictional authority of the County of Marin. The recommendations contained in the Study are intended to be advisory to the towns of Tiburon and Belvedere to the extent portions of the study area are also located within their respective jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan
    Wetlands and Water Resources, Inc. 818 Fifth Avenue, Suite 208 San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel 415.457.0250 Fax 415.457.0260 www.swampthing . org Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan April 19, 2010 Prepared for: Richardson Bay Audubon Sanctuary 376 Greenwood Beach Road Tiburon, CA 94920 In Partnership with: Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 Project No. 1145 Prepared in Collaboration with: Roger Leventhal, PE, FarWest Restoration Engineering Peter Baye, PhD Planning Assessment Design Implementation Applied Science This page intentionally left blank Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Draft Enhancement Plan 19 April 2010 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 HISTORY OF RICHARDSON BAY ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 HISTORY OF ARAMBURU ISLAND AND HARBOR SEAL HAUL‐OUT .................................................................................... 3 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND HABITATS ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]