DOCSLIB.ORG

3.0 Affected Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3.0 Affected Environment 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter presents the existing environmental conditions within the project study area and, if appropriate, beyond the study area boundaries, identified in Figure 1-1. The information relates to both landside and waterside conditions along the Berkeley/Albany waterfront that could be affected by project implementation. The information presented is based on technical memoranda prepared for each of the environmental topics identified below. Information included in this chapter is excerpted from the technical memoranda, which are kept on file at the WETA office at Pier 9 in San Francisco. 3.1 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This section describes existing transit service within an expanded study area (“transit service study area”) bounded by El Cerrito Plaza BART station (Fairmount Avenue) to the north, the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay on the west, Ashby Avenue on the south and Sacramento Street on the east, extending northward generally from the intersection of Sacramento and Hopkins Streets to Santa Fe and Solano Avenues, then following Santa Fe Avenue north to Fairmount Avenue. Local and regional transit providers serve the transit service study area. AC Transit provides local and transbay bus service while BART and Amtrak provide regional rail transit service to this study area. In addition, the WBS provides shuttle service between the Ashby BART station and the West Berkeley employment centers. Existing traffic and parking conditions within the study area, particularly access roads and potential parking areas adjacent to the alternative ferry terminal sites, are also described. Existing traffic volumes and Level of Service (LOS) at key intersections within the study area are provided. 3.1.1 Transit Service Direct transit service or the stop location nearest to each ferry terminal location is identified in Table 3-1. None of the proposed sites are currently directly served by transit (service within 200 feet). A map illustrating existing local transit service within the transit service area is shown in Figure 3-1. 3.1.2 AC Transit Services AC Transit Routes in the Transit Service Study Area. AC Transit is the main provider of local and transbay bus services within the project study area and the transit service study area. AC Transit provides service to 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The transit service study area includes 15 confirmed bus routes. Local bus lines that serve the transit service study area include: 9, 18, 19, 51, 52, 52L, 72, 72M, 72R, and 88. The 802 Owl also provides all-night service, including service to the Berkeley Amtrak R:\08 WTA3\3_0.doc 3-1 Table 3-1 Transit Service Stop Locations Nearest to Proposed Ferry Terminal Site Alternatives Stop Locations Nearest to the Project Site AC Transit Other Bus West Ferry Terminal Direct Nearest Lines in Berkeley Site Alternatives Service Bus Lines Vicinity BART Shuttle A – Berkeley North 6th and none 9 19, 51, G, Z Marina Berkeley Dwight B – Berkeley North 6th and none 9 19, 51, G, Z Fishing Pier Berkeley Dwight El C – Gilman Street none 9, H, Z 52, 52L Cerrito -- Plaza El D – Buchanan none 18, Z 52, 52L Cerrito -- Street Plaza Note: Based on existing route information obtained from AC Transit from March – June 2007. Station, located at University Avenue and 3rd Street from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. During the weekday commute hours, AC Transit offers regional transbay bus service between the San Francisco Transbay Terminal and the transit service study area. Four transbay lines that serve the area include the G, H, J, and Z. AC Transit changed several bus routes within the study area on June 3, 2007. Provision and Usage of Transit Service. Table 3-2 presents the route structure, span of service, headways, schedule adherence, and vehicle type and capacity for the 15 AC Transit lines in the transit service study area. AC Transit Service Standards. AC Transit maintains a set of service standards known as “Policy 550” to establish guidelines for route and service design. The standards establish district policy for headways, travel times, load factors, service span (hours of service), and network design. AC Transit’s routes are assessed based on these measures, which are then used for decision making as to schedule adjustments, route changes, equipment assignments, and running time adjustments. For this project, the load factor standards will be important in assessing any future impact from transferring ferry riders. AC Transit establishes maximum acceptable load factors for different types of routes, usually 25 percent over seated capacity. None of the transit routes within the transit service study area currently carry loads on a daily basis that exceed, or even approach AC Transit’s maximum standard. R:\08 WTA3\3_0.doc 3-2 72R EL CERRITO TILDEN REGIONAL PARK L, 52L KENSINGTON l-80 72M, 72 52L EL CERRITO 580 WILDCAT G, 79 GRIZZLY CANYON 72 BART LINE SAN PABLO RD H,7 PEAK COLUSA CANYON THE EU WILDCAT ARLINGTON CLID 52L 18,G BUCHANAN ALBANY SOLANO AVE D Z BLVD 52L 52L,G 18 MARIN L FS FS ALAMEDA H SUTTER H H,9,Z GILMAN SANTAFEAVE 7,9,18 C H,9 9 7,9,18 79 79 SPRUCE RAILROAD TRACKS MARTIN L L, H BAY TRAIL ROSE SIXTH H 19 HOPKINS 67 19 67 CEDAR UTHER KING 9,Z SHATTUCK 65 65 CONTRA COSTA A OXFORD NORTH BERKELEY EUCLID 88 19 19 88 CO. MARINA UNIVERSITY 51,52L JR W HEARST GAYLEY RD UNIVERSITY J 802,G FS J AY 9 BERKELEY B 802 UNIVERSITY 52L,F SACRAMENTO 19 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY OF CALIFORNIA Bike Bridge BANCROFT WAY 51 PIEDMONT l-80 DURANT FUL 9 9 DWIGHT 51 SEVENTH SAN PABLO AQUATIC PARK WAY FS,G,L,H TON 88,J 88,J COLLEGE AVE 15 15 SAN FRANCISCO BAY WARRING 9,Z, 19 7 72M 72R 72 DERBY 19 1,1R 1,1R 18 18 51 51 J TELEGRAPH ASHBY 9 9 9 ASHBY LEGEND AC Transit Bus Route A Berkeley Marina Alternative AC Transit Route on Freeway B Berkeley Fishing Pier Alternative (No Stops) C Gilman Street Alternative West Berkeley Shuttle D Buchanan Street Alternative Letter or Number Denotes 9,Z AC Transit Route Regional Rail BART Station Amtrak Railroad Station Library LOCAL TRANSIT NETWORK AS OF JUNE 3, 2007 Public School Berkeley/Albany October 2008 Ferry Terminal Study Transit Service Study Area 28067367 Source: FIGURE 3-1 City of Berkeley, Geographic Information Systems. 9/26/08 hk ..\WTA\EIS-EIR 2008\F3-1_local transit.cdr Table 3-2 AC Transit Service by Route Schedule Adherence* (%) AC Transit Fleet Information Capacity Span of Service Headways Weekday Saturday Sunday Vehicle Vehicle Type Capacity Breakdown Weekday 29 seated, 10 Line Direction Endpoint Weekday Weekend Peak Midday Evening Saturday Sunday Early** On-time Late Early** On-time Late Early** On-time Late Type Capacity 30 foot 39 standees Ashby Avenue (Ashby Ave and 6:27 a.m. – 7:00 a.m. – 40 foot – Local 32 seated, 16 9 EB Claremont Ave) 9:20 p.m. 8:51 p.m. 20-30 20-30 30 30 30 11.5 69.4 19.1 3.2 67.7 29 11 60.3 28.6 30 foot 39 Service /urban coach 48 standees Berkeley Marina (Seawall Dr and 6:20 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. – 40 foot – Transbay 32 seated, no 9 WB University Ave) 9:05 p.m. 8:51 p.m. 20-30 20-30 30 30 30 11.5 69.4 19.1 3.2 67.7 29 11 60.3 28.6 30 foot 39 Service /urban coach 32 standees 6:06 a.m. – 6:06 a.m. – 57 seated, no 19 EB Fruitvale BART 10:21 p.m. 10:21 p.m. 30 30 30 30 30 3.5 72.6 23.9 8.5 65.5 26 5.7 78.6 15.6 30 foot 39 45 foot – MCI 57 standees North Berkeley 6:38 a.m. – 6:38 a.m. – 40 seated, 20 19 WB BART 10:15 p.m. 10:15 p.m. 30 30 30 30 30 3.5 72.6 23.9 8.5 65.5 26 5.7 78.6 15.6 30 foot 39 60 foot – articulated 60 standees 40 foot – El Cerrito (San Pablo 5:17 a.m. – 5:40 a.m. – urban Source: Bruzzone, 2007. AC Transit; AC Transit 43 NB Ave and Marin Ave) 12:24 a.m. 12:20 a.m. 15 15 20-30 20-30 20-30 7.3 71.2 21.6 2.7 72.2 25.2 5.9 84.1 9.9 coach 48 website (www.actransit.org) Eastmont Transit 40 foot – Center (Foothill Blvd 5:01 a.m. – 5:43 p.m. – urban 43 SB and Eastmont) 11:56 p.m. 11:57 p.m. 15 15 20-30 20-30 20-30 7.3 71.2 21.6 2.7 72.2 25.2 5.9 84.1 9.9 coach 48 40 foot – Berkeley (University 4:54 a.m. – 4:58 a.m. – urban 51 NB Ave and 3rd St) 12:41 a.m. 12:41 a.m. 8 10 15-20 15-60 20-60 5 67.3 27.7 4.5 60.8 34.6 8.4 74 17.6 coach 48 40 foot – Alameda (Blanding 4:59 a.m. – 4:59 a.m. – urban 51 SB Ave and Broadway) 12:28 a.m. 12:28 a.m. 8 10 15-20 15-60 20-60 5 67.3 27.7 4.5 60.8 34.6 8.4 74 17.6 coach 48 Discontinu UC Village (956 8:57 a.m.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    10/14/2016 12:55:12 PM 16CV21495 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 7 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH 9 BRIAN RESENDEZ, RODICA ALINA RESENDEZ, MICHELE FRANCISCO, and Case No. 16CV16164 10 MATTHEW TALBOT; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 11 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. CLAIM NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ARBITRATION 14 PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., an Oregon corporation, and PCC STRUCTURALS, INC., AMOUNT SOUGHT: OVER $10,000,000 15 ORS 21.160(1)(E) Defendants. 16 Filing Fee Under ORS 21.135(2)(a) 17 KELLEY FOSTER, JUAN PRAT- SANCHEZ, MARK McNAMARA, and 18 DEBRA TAEVS; individually and on behalf Case No. 16CV21495 19 of all others similarly situated, 20 Plaintiffs, 21 v. 22 PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., an Oregon corporation, and PCC 23 STRUCTURALS, INC., 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 30 31 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 32 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. 3 Plaintiffs Brian Anthony Resendez, Rodica Alina Resendez, Michele Francisco, Matthew Talbot, 4 Kelley Foster, Juan Prat-Sanchez, Mark McNamara, and Debra Taevs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), 5 individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, hereby file this Class Action 6 Complaint against Defendants Precision Castparts Corporation and PCC Structurals, Inc. (collectively, 7 “Defendants” or “Precision Castparts”), making the allegations herein upon personal knowledge as to 8 themselves and their own acts, and upon information and belief and based upon investigation of counsel 9 as to all other matters, as set forth herein.
    [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]
  • Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge 2020
    Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020 -2021 Waterfowl Hunting Regulations These Regulations along with maps and directions are available at: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Don_Edwards_San_Francisco_Bay/hunting.html General Information The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) contains approximately 10,580 acres of tidal areas and salt ponds that are open to waterfowl hunting (Map 1). Season opening and closing dates are determined by the State of California. Check the California Waterfowl Regulations (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting) each season for these dates. Hunters must comply with all State and Federal regulations including regulations listed under 50 CFR 32.24, and the refuge-specific regulations described below. Permit Requirements Hunters 18 years of age or older will need to have: 1) a valid California hunting license; 2) a valid, signed Federal Duck Stamp; 3) a California Duck Validation; 4) a Harvest Information Program (HIP) Validation; and 5) identification that includes a photograph (e.g., driver’s license). Junior and Youth hunters need the following: Junior/Youth Hunter Summary 15 yrs old or 16-17 yrs old w/ Jr 18 yrs old w/ Jr under (Youth) license (Junior) license (Junior) Participate in post-season youth hunt? Yes Yes No Needs a California hunting license? Yes Yes Yes Needs a HIP Validation? Yes Yes Yes Needs a Federal Duck Stamp? No Yes Yes Needs a State Duck Stamp (validation)? No No No Needs an adult accompanying them on regular hunt days? Yes No No Needs an adult accompanying them for youth hunt days? Yes Yes Yes It is required that all hunters possess a Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Permit when hunting in the Alviso Ponds.
    [Show full text]
  • Codornices Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan
    Codornices Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan Prepared for the Urban Creeks Council By Kier Associates Fisheries and Watershed Professionals 207 Second Street, Ste. B Sausalito, CA 94965 November, 2003 The Codornices Creek watershed assessment and salmonid restoration planning project, the results of which are reported here, was funded by the Watershed Program of the California Bay-Delta Authority, through Contract No. 4600001722 between the California Department of Water Resources and the Urban Creeks Council. The Urban Creeks Council is a non-profit organization working to preserve, protect, and restore urban streams and their riparian habitat. The Urban Creeks Council may be reached at 1250 Addison Street, Ste. 107, Berkeley, CA 94702 (510- 540-6669). Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... ii Introduction Fish and stream habitat records................................................................................................. 1 Other Codornices Creek studies................................................................................................ 1 Methods: How Each Element of the Project Was Undertaken Fish population assessment methods ........................................................................................ 2 Salmonid habitat assessment methods.....................................................................................
    [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]
  • Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond
    BIRDING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Site Guides to 72 of the Best Birding Spots by Jean Richmond Written for Mt. Diablo Audubon Society 1985 Dedicated to my husband, Rich Cover drawing by Harry Adamson Sketches by Marv Reif Graphics by dk graphics © 1985, 2008 Mt. Diablo Audubon Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means without prior permission of MDAS. P.O. Box 53 Walnut Creek, California 94596 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . How To Use This Guide .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Birding Etiquette .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Terminology. Park Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 One Last Word. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 Map Symbols Used. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Acknowledgements .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Map With Numerical Index To Guides .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 The Guides. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 Where The Birds Are. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 158 Recommended References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 Index Of Birding Locations. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 166 5 6 Birding Northern California This book is a guide to many birding areas in northern California, primarily within 100 miles of the San Francisco Bay Area and easily birded on a one-day outing. Also included are several favorite spots which local birders
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite Guide @Yosemitenps
    Yosemite Guide @YosemiteNPS Yosemite's rockclimbing community go to great lengths to clean hard-to-reach areas during a Yosemite Facelift event. Photo by Kaya Lindsey Experience Your America Yosemite National Park August 28, 2019 - October 1, 2019 Volume 44, Issue 7 Yosemite, CA 95389 Yosemite, 577 PO Box Service Park National US DepartmentInterior of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System Year-round Route: Valley Yosemite Valley Shuttle Valley Visitor Center Summer-only Route: Upper Hetch Yosemite Shuttle System El Capitan Hetchy Shuttle Fall Yosemite Tuolumne Village Campground Meadows Lower Yosemite Parking The Ansel Fall Adams Yosemite l Medical Church Bowl i Gallery ra Clinic Picnic Area Picnic Area Valley l T Area in inset: al F e E1 t 5 Restroom Yosemite Valley i 4 m 9 The Ahwahnee Shuttle System se Yo Mirror Upper 10 3 Walk-In 6 2 Lake Campground seasonal 11 1 Wawona Yosemite North Camp 4 8 Half Dome Valley Housekeeping Pines E2 Lower 8836 ft 7 Chapel Camp Yosemite Falls Parking Lodge Pines 2693 m Yosemite 18 19 Conservation 12 17 Heritage 20 14 Swinging Center (YCHC) Recreation Campground Bridge Rentals 13 15 Reservations Yosemite Village Parking Curry Upper Sentinel Village Pines Beach il Trailhead E6 a Curry Village Parking r r T te Parking e n il i w M in r u d 16 o e Nature Center El Capitan F s lo c at Happy Isles Picnic Area Glacier Point E3 no shuttle service closed in winter Vernal 72I4 ft Fall 2I99 m l Mist Trai Cathedral ail Tr op h Beach Lo or M E4 ey ses erce all only d Ri V ver E5 Nevada Fall To & Bridalveil Fall d oa R B a r n id wo a a lv W e i The Yosemite Valley Shuttle operates from 7am to 10pm and serves stops in numerical order.
    [Show full text]
  • Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021
    Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021 Reasonable care is given in gathering, compiling and furnishing the information contained herein which is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but the Planroom is not responsible or liable for errors, omissions or inaccuracies. Plan# Name Bid Date & Time OPR# Location Estimate Project Type Monday, August 16, 2021 OUTREACH MEETING (VIRTUAL) EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE (EVC) STUDENT SERVICES Addenda: 0 COMPLEX (REQUEST FOR SUB BIDS) SC 8/16/21 10:00 AM 21-02526 San Jose School ONLINE Plan Issuer: XL Construction 408-240-6000 408-240-6001 THIS IS A VIRTUAL OUTREACH MEETING. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. SEE FLYER FOR DETAILS. The 74,000 sf Student Services Complex at Evergreen Valley College is part of the San Jose Evergreen Community College District's Measure X Bond Program. This is a new ground-up two -story complex including collaboration spaces, offices, storage, restrooms and supporting facilities. All subcontractors must be prequalified with XL Construction to bid the project. Please email [email protected] for a prequalification application link, and [email protected] if you are an Under Utilized Business Enterprise (SBE, WBE, MBE, VBE...). REFINISHING GYM AND STAGE FLOORS AT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND Addenda: 0 8/16/21 12:00 PM 21-02463 Fremont State-Federal Plan Issuer: California Department of Education - Personnel Service Division 916-319-0800 000-000-0000 Contract #: BF210152 The Contractor shall provide all labor, equipment and materials necessary for preparing and refinishing the stage and gym floors, twice a year, at the California School for the Blind (CSB), located at 500 Walnut Avenue, Fremont.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Native Oyster Restoration in San Francisco Bay. Final Report to California Coastal Conservancy Agreement
    Planning for Native Oyster Restoration in San Francisco Bay Final Report to California Coastal Conservancy Agreement # 05-134 Edwin Grosholza, Jim Mooreb, Chela Zabina, Sarikka Attoea and Rena Obernoltea aDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy University of California, Davis bCalifornia Department of Fish and Game Funding provided by the California Ocean Protection Council Introduction Historically, native Olympia oysters Ostreola conchaphila (=Ostrea lurida) (Turgeon et al. 1998) were an abundant and ecologically important part of the fauna in West Coast estuaries and an important fishery (Barnett 1963, Baker 1995). Unfortunately, the popularity of the fishery that began in the 1850s resulted in the complete collapse of native oyster populations along the west coast of the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Barnett 1963, Baker 1995). Not only was the fishery lost, but so were the key ecosystem services provided by native oysters. Studies of oysters in estuaries in the eastern U.S. have shown that native oyster reefs (Crassostrea virginica) act as a “foundation species” by creating a refuge from predators and physical stress as well as a food source resulting in increased local diversity of fishes and invertebrates (Zimmerman 1989, Lenihan 1999, Micheli and Peterson 1999, Lenihan et al. 2001). In the largely unstructured, soft-sediment habitats of West Coast estuaries, aggregations of native oysters were likely to have provided similar functions and have been shown to increase invertebrate species richness (Kimbro and Grosholz 2006). The introduction of exotic Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) from Asia in the early 20th century provided a successful replacement for the native oyster fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • 11. Soils and Geology March 5, 2003 Page 11-1
    Marina Shores Village Project Draft EIR City of Redwood City 11. Soils and Geology March 5, 2003 Page 11-1 11. SOILS AND GEOLOGY This EIR chapter describes existing geologic and soil conditions at the project site and immediate vicinity, identifies associated potential geotechnical impacts related to development of the proposed project, and sets forth measures designed to mitigate identified significant adverse impacts. Data sources used to complete these descriptions include a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the Marina Shores Village project site performed for the applicant by Treadwell & Rollo, Environmental and Geotechnical Consultants, dated June 21, 2001; the assessment of project hydrologic implications completed for this EIR by Clearwater Hydrology (see chapter 9); a wetlands investigation and a biological assessment performed for the applicant by the Huffman-Broadway Group, both dated February 2002; published reference materials produced by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); environmental documents prepared for previous development projects on the site (e.g., the Peninsula Marina and Office Park) and in the immediate vicinity (e.g., the "Villas at Bair Island" and the Bair Island Marina); and the Redwood City Strategic General Plan. The Treadwell & Rollo preliminary geotechnical investigation, much of which is presented in this EIR chapter, describes the limitations and preliminary nature of its conclusions by stating, "The conclusions presented in this report are preliminary and intended to address general geotechnical conditions of the site. The report has not been prepared to meet the need of design professionals, contractors, or any other parties in preparation of final design or construction documents.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]