DOCSLIB.ORG

Pros & Cons Backup

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pros & Cons Backup The California Primary MARCH 2, 2004 The League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany and Emeryville 1414 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94702 • (510) 843-8824 Nonpartisan Information on Ballot Measures Regional Measure 2 - Regional Traffic Relief Plan Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Solano A Majority Vote Needed to Pass this Measure The Question: ß strengthening the transbay BART tube to withstand Shall bridge tolls on seven state- earthquakes ($143M); ß new rail service over the Dumbarton bridge ($135M); Regional owned bridges be raised by $1 to ß improvements to the I-80/I-680 interchange at Cordelia pay for transportation improve- Traffic ($100M); ments and transit operations? ß expanded ferry connections ($84M); Relief Plan The Way It Is Now: ß improvements to the US 101 interchange at Greenbrae ($65M); Traffic congestion at bridges has ß a fourth bore for the Caldecott Tunnel ($51M); been increasing. This increases ß carpool lane completion eastbound at the Carquinez air pollution and travel times and costs of doing business Bridge ($50M); in the Bay Area. The land connection of the BART tube ß completion of new Benicia-Martinez Bridge ($50M); under the bay would be vulnerable in a major earthquake. ß common regional transit ticket system (Translink) To get cost-effective transit alternatives to congested ($42M); bridges both additional funds and transit coordination are ß rail connection between ferry and Sonoma-Marin rail needed. ($35M); ß Muni 3rd Street light rail ($30M); What Measure 2 Would Do: ß intermodal terminal at Vallejo linking express bus and ferry ($28M); Regional Measure 2 is a transportation financing proposal ß access improvements for pedestrians and cyclists to placed on the ballot by the California Legislature (Perata, transit ($23M); SB916). If a majority of voters in the seven Bay Area ß Capital Corridor track and station improvement ($25M); counties with state-owned bridges pass this measure, ß real-time transit information at stops or via communica- bridge tolls would be increased by $1. The toll for the tion devices ($20M); Antioch, Benicia, Carquinez, San Rafael, Bay, San Mateo The measure requires that transit operators receiving operating and Dumbarton bridges would then be $3; the Golden Gate fundsth meet performance standards for cost-effectiveness and Bridge is not state-owned and currently has a toll of $5. number of riders. If not, funds can be reassigned by the Metro- The increased toll would relieve the growing traffic politan Transportation Commission (composed of locally congestion on the bridges by funding transportation elected officials from the nine counties of the Bay Area) after a improvements around the Bay and would benefit those public hearing process. Once the projects are in the State using the bridges and paying the fee. The measure would Transportation Improvement Plan, the project sponsors must raise $125 million a year for 35 years. Of this total, $41 agree to any amendments. million per year would fund transit operations, In addition, The measure requires the Metropolitan Transportation Com- the measure would fund the following projects: mission to develop a Regional Transit Connectivity Plan ß BART extension to Warm Springs & Oakland Airport, identifying hubs for timed transfers between systems by Dec. 1, connection to East Contra Costa County (on conven- 2005; a Regional Rail Master Plan integrating passenger rail tional rail) and turnback track at Pleasant Hill services by July 1, 2006; and an integrated fare program by ($246M); July 1, 2007. ß expanded regional express bus network with park and ride ($171M); A YES VOTE means you do want the bridge tolls increased by ß new Transbay Terminal linking regional buses, Muni, $1 to fund a package of regional transportation improvements. BART, Caltrain and future high speed California rail A NO VOTE means you do not want the bridge tolls increased ($150M); by $1 to fund a package of regional transportation improvements. Page 2. Proponents Say: Opponents Say: ß Funds will be raised for transportation improvements ß The measure distributes funds by ballot measure to accommodate an estimated 50% increase in trips rather than selecting projects through the regional in the bridge corridors (1998-2025) transportation planning process. Priorities may be ß Raising transportation money through bridge tolls, determined by political pressure rather than by improving transit connections and connecting HOV transportation and land use planning criteria. lanes will encourage use of transit and carpools, ß Some projects may encourage more people to drive reducing congestion and air pollution at the bridges. by removing bottlenecks and increase congestion at ß The measure will improve connections between the bridges. No data is provided on how effectively transit systems for maximum cost-effectiveness. It the proposed investments will alleviate traffic will require a regional rail master plan to integrate congestion at Bay Area bridges. passenger rail services. ß Some of the BART extensions may not have ß The measure will strengthen the essential BART enough riders to justify the investment, according transbay tube to withstand earthquakes. It will to current land use plans. provide additional ferry capacity for flexible emer- ß Revenues from increased bridge tolls will not com- gency service. pletely fund most projects. This will create pressure ß Funds for operating transit as well as for building to use other transportation funds for these uses. transit are included so we avoid building transit we ß There is no automatic sunset provision for this can’t afford to operate. measure. ß Raising transportation money within the region will assist long-term regional transportation planning. ß The Metropolitan Transportation Commission - as the Bay Area Toll Authority - could have set a $3 For additional information, review the bridge toll without a ballot measure and taken re- Official California Legislative Digest sponsibility for regional rail and transit connectivity www.leginfo.ca.gov on Senate Bill 916, Perata plans, which would provide direct accountability. Alameda County Measure A - Essential Health Care Services Tax A Two-thirds Vote is Needed to Pass this Measure The Question: lending funds to help to relieve these deficits, but the Essential Should Alameda County imple- County is experiencing its own fiscal problems. The State is ment a half-cent sales and use tax, reducing funding to the Counties and to its medical care Health Care with annual citizen fiscal over- system. sight and review, to relieve the What Measure A Would Do: Services shortfall in funding for County health services? The County is proposing to raise money to relieve the fiscal Tax crisis in its health care systems by placing on the ballot this The Way It Is Now: measure for a one-half cent increase in the tax rate for retail Alameda County provides health care services through two transactions and use. Currently, the county tax rate is systems: the Health Care Services Agency, and the Alameda 8.25%; this measure would increase the rate to 8.75%. The County Medical Center. The Medical Center and its associ- tax is scheduled to begin July 1 of 2004, after adoption by ated clinics provide care at Highland and Fairmont Hospitals the required two-thirds of the voters in the March 2004 and the John George Psychiatric Pavilion on the Fairmont election. If approved, the tax increase would end on June Hospital Campus. Both systems receive funding through a 30, 2019. combination of Federal, State and local monies. Both systems Proceeds from the the tax money would be used to: have experienced an increase in demand for services from tCenter. uninsured persons due to the poor economy, increase in ß provide and maintain trauma and medical services unemployment, and erosion of employee health benefits. throughout Alameda County; ß provide primary, preventative and mental health At the same time, the fiscal crisis experienced by the State services to indigent, low income and uninsured has resulted in reduction of funding. The Medical Center, children, families and seniors; which is governed by a separate Board of Trustees but ß retain qualified nurses and health care professionals; which retains close ties to County governance, has been ß particularly hard-hit by the increased demands for primary prevent closure of County clinics and the Alameda health care by the uninsured. The Medical Center has County Medical Center. already closed some services and is currently operating at a The County has created a proposed ordinance that will large deficit. The County has been both contributing and implement the measure if the voters adopt it. The ordinance Page 3. specifies how the tax increase will be administered and spent • Measure A is a frugal and carefully crafted plan to and specufically designates 75% of the proceeds to the address the most essential health care needs Alameda County Medical Center and 25% to other medical throughout Alameda County; services, such as community based health care providers, • Measure A is supported by doctors, nurses, the uncompensated care costs for emergency care and other Alameda County Taxpayers Association, all five related hospital admissions, and essential public health, members of the Board of Supervisors, business mental health and substance abuse services. leaders, seniors, and other residents. The proposed ordinance also provides for the establishment Opponents Say: of a Citizen Oversight Committee to review the expenditure • We display an insatiable appetite for government of the money gained from the passage of this measure and programs to meet our endless needs, are addicted to evaluate how the money was spent for the purposes it spells debt, yet balk at paying the bill – hence this laudable out. This committee would report its findings annually to the tax hike measure. But is this a bill worth paying?; County Board of Supervisors. • This sales tax hike targets services to the poor and Financial Impact: uninsured but it transfers wealth to them ineffi- ciently.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Marin Islands NWR Sport Fishing Plan
    Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 3 SPORT FISHING PLAN 3 1. Introduction 3 2. Statement of Objectives 4 3. Description of the Fishing Program 5 A. Area to be Opened to Fishing 5 B. Species to be Taken, Fishing periods, Fishing Access 5 C. Fishing Permit Requirements 7 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State 7 E. Law Enforcement 7 F. Funding and Staffing Requirements 8 4. Conduct of the Fishing Program 8 A. Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures (if applicable) 8 B. Refuge-Spec if ic Fishing Regulat ions 8 C. Relevant State Regulations 8 D. Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Sport Fishing 8 5. Public Engagement 9 A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program 9 B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program 9 C. How Anglers Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations 9 6. Compatibility Determination 9 7. Literature Cited 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed Sport Fishing Area Fishing…………………………………6 Marin Islands NWR Fishing Plan Page 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SPORT FISHING PLAN 1. Introduction National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region
    Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region July 2009 Executive Summary Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. §1855(b)), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as the federal lead and co-lead agencies, respectively, submit this Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region. This document provides an assessment of the potential effects of the on-going dredging and dredged material placement activities of all federal and non-federal maintenance dredging projects in the action area (see Figure 1.1 located on page 3). The SF Bay LTMS program area spans 11 counties, including: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties. It does not include the mountainous or inland areas far removed from navigable waters. The geographic scope of potential impacts included in this consultation (action area) comprises the estuarine waters of the San Francisco Bay region, portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) west of Sherman Island and the western portion of the Port of Sacramento and Port of Stockton deep water ship channels. It also includes the wetlands and shallow intertidal areas that form a margin around the Estuary and the tidal portions of its tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • MARTIN GRIFFIN an Oral History Interview Conducted by Debra Schwartz in 2015
    Mill Valley Oral History Program A collaboration between the Mill Valley Historical Society and the Mill Valley Public Library MARTIN GRIFFIN An Oral History Interview Conducted by Debra Schwartz in 2015 © 2015 by the Mill Valley Public Library TITLE: Oral History of Martin Griffin INTERVIEWER: Debra Schwartz DESCRIPTION: Transcript, 37 pages INTERVIEW DATE: October 20th, 2015 In this oral history, physician, naturalist, champion of open spaces and bane of developers Martin Griffin recounts with warmth and humor his long and extraordinarily active life. Born in Ogden, Utah, in 1920 to nature-loving parents, Martin moved with his family to Portland, Oregon, when the Great Depression hit, and then down to Los Angeles and finally up to Oakland, where he attended elementary school through high school. Martin recalls some early experiences that shaped his love for the environment, including his involvement with the Boy Scouts, where he met the graduate student entomologist Brighton C. “Bugs” Cain, who profoundly inspired him. It was also as a boy that Martin came over to Mill Valley for the first time, making his way by ferry and train, to go hiking on Mt. Tamalpais. He conjures the beautiful vision he had from the ridge that day of white birds down on Bolinas Lagoon, a vision which made such a powerful impression on him and would, years later, feed the flames of his conservationist passion. Martin recounts being involved in ROTC while an undergraduate at U.C. Berkeley, later attending medical school at Stanford, where he got married, and moving over to Marin to begin his medical practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H Cultural Resources
    GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL APPENDIX H CULTURAL RESOURCES This appendix contains the following items: The Cultural Resources Existing Conditions and Survey Methodology Report and Archaeological Survey to support the assessment of the effects of the proposed project on historic properties. Documentation of coordination with tribal governments including the FAA’s government-to-government consultations with tribes in accordance with Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments and FAA Order 1210.20 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures. Documentation of the FAA’s consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that resulted in the FAA’s determination that the Gnoss Field Airport Runway Extension Project would have no effect on historic properties. Landrum & Brown Appendix H - Cultural Resources June 2014 Page H-1 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Landrum & Brown Appendix H - Cultural Resources June 2014 Page H-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY REPORT AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT For the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to Evaluate the Proposed Extension of Runway 13/31 at Gnoss Field Airport Marin County, Novato, California Dwight D. Simons, Ph.C and Kim J. Tremaine, Ph.C., RPA TREMAINE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 859 Stillwater Road, Suite 1 West Sacramento, CA 95605 November 6, 2009 Revised July 18, 2011 Submitted To Landrum and Brown, Inc. 11279 Cornell Park Drive Cincinnati, OH 45242 Page H-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CALENDAR ITEM Howe AUTHORIZE the PURCHASE with KAPILOFF
    CALENDAR ITEM A 9 61 03127190 '~ 3 W 24425 AD 117 Howe AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE WITH KAPILOFF LANO BANK TRUST FUNDS A PARCEL OF LANO KNOWN AS THE MARIN ISLANDS IN SAN RAFAEL BAY, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. MARIN COUNTY APPLICANT: State Lands Commission as trustee 9f the Kapiloff Land Bank Fund Staff of the California Coastal Conservancy, Marin Open ~pace District, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Stjte Lands Commission have been considering the purchase of tid~lands apd two islands known as the Marin Islands, located in San Rafael Bay, City of San Rafael, Marin County. These agencies will contribute one-half of the purchase price. It is proposed that the Commission contribute $500,000 toward this -~mount from the Kapiloff Land Bank Fund. Private funding_ will be raised to cover the remaining half of the purchase price. The subject parcel is approximately 339 acres: 32'6 acres are tideland lots located in the bed of San Rafael Bay. The tideland portion of the subjact property is presently unfilled and in a natural condition, and as such, ·remain an integral part of the overall San Francisco Bay estuarine ecosystem., The West Marin Island is 2.90 acres of open space used primarily for nesting purposes by a variety of waterfowl. This island is, uegetated with native grasses and small trees. Due to its isolated location and terrain, the island is a productive rookery For a variety oF water fowl visiting the Bay area. The island has been identified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as having the largest heron rookery in San Franci~co Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study: “Marin Countywide Plan” Alex Hinds
    Case Study: “Marin Countywide Plan” Alex Hinds Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Into Climate Action Plans & General Plan Updates September 13, 2010 Background & Motivation “Planning is best done in advance ” (Marin staff updates general plan every10+ years) CountywideCountywide PlanPlan PublicPublic OutreachOutreach && CommunityCommunity Participation:Participation: • Extensive public outreach and education • Guiding Principles & 4 Working Groups (2001- 2002) • 115 public meetings • Adopted Nov 6, 2007 In 2001 “Planning Sustainable Communities” was selected as the theme of Marin’s General Plan Update CWP Definition of Sustainability : Aligning our built environment and socioeconomic activities w/ the natural systems that support life Adapting human activities to the constraints and opportunities of nature Meeting the needs of both the present and the future Countywide Goals include: A Reduced Ecological Footprint Marin will increasingly use resources at a level similar to Western Europe A Community Safe from Climate Change Marin will be a leader in averting and adapting to all aspects of climate change Ecological Footprint Comparison (Global Footprint Network) 30.0 27.4 24.0 25.0 21.8 20.0 15.0 13.0 9.5 10.0 Acresper Person 5.0 3.1 2.5 0.0 Marin United Canada France Italy Chile Mexico County States How Does Marin’s Footprint Compare to Other San Francisco Bay Area Counties? (Global Footprint Network/Redefining Progress) Number of earths that would be required to serve the footprint of each S.F. Bay Area County: Climate Change: Promoting Climate Protection Joined ICLEI’s five step program in 2002: 1. Assessed Marin’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 2. Set target to reduce emissions 3.
    [Show full text]
  • By April Thygeson
    Color Page “The Voice of the Waterfront” April 2012 Vol.13, No.4 Opening Day on the Bay American Spirit at Annual Bash 40,000 Miles of Water World Racers to Stop in Oakland A Very Clean Marina Initiative Takes on Raw Sewage Complete Ferry Schedules for all SF Lines Color Page TASTING ROOM OPEN DAILY FROM 11AM TO 6PM TASTE, TOUR RELAX Just a short ferry ride across San Francisco Bay lies the original urban winery, Rosenblum Cellars. Alameda is our urban island with no pretension. Our tasting room is a true gem, with a rustic urban charm that attracts fans from around the world to enjoy the unique, relaxed atmosphere. TWO FOR ONE TASTING with this ad. $10 value www.rosenblumcellars.com 2900 Main St. Suite 1100 Alameda, CA 1-877-GR8-ZINS Please enjoy our wines responsibly. © 2011 Rosenblum Cel Alameda, CA www.DrinkiQ.com 2 April 2012 www.baycrossings.com columns features 05 WHO’S AT THE HELM? 12 OPENING DAY Captain Chuck Elles Catch the Spirit at 95th by Matt Larson Annual Celebration by April Thygeson 11 08 BAYKEEPER Clean Boat Repair Tips 14 GREEN PAGES guides by Deb Self Clean Marina Initiative Puts Brakes on Sewage WATERFRONT ACTIVITIES 22 Our recreational resource guide 09 SAILING ADVENTURES by Bill Picture The Marin Islands 24 WETA FERRY SCHEDULES by Captain Ray news Be on time for last call AROUND THE BAY 20 CULTURAL CURRENTS 04 511 Transit Info App 26 To see, be, do, know Destination: L.A. Debuts for Smartphones by Paul Duclos by Craig Noble ON OUR COVER 06 WATERFRONT NEWS Foreign Trade Drives April 2012 Volume 13, Number 4 Growth at Bay Ports Bobby Winston, Proprietor by Patrick Burnson Joyce Aldana, President Joel Williams, Publisher Patrick Runkle, Editor Around-the-World Racers ADVERTISING & MARKETING 10 Joel Williams, Advertising & Marketing Director to Make Stop in Oakland GRAPHICS & PRODUCTION Francisco Arreola, Designer / Web Producer AMERICA’S CUP ART DIRECTION 16 Francisco Arreola; Patrick Runkle; Joel Williams Final Agreement with S.F.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-Shore Linkages Project
    Final Report- Estuary 2100-2 “San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund” San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-shore Linkages Project Integrating Subtidal Habitat Restoration Projects to Increase Connectivity, Function, and Resiliency across Multiple Habitats in San Francisco Bay. July 10, 2015 Marilyn Latta, Project Manager, State Coastal Conservancy (510-286-4157, [email protected]) Contributors to this Report: San Francisco State University: Katharyn Boyer, Jen Miller, Cassie Pinnell, Julien Moderan, Stephanie Kiriakopolos and Kevin Stockmann University of California at Davis: Chela Zabin, Edwin Grosholz, Stephanie Kiriakopolos United States Geological Survey: Susan De La Cruz, Ashley Smith, Tanya Graham, and Laura Hollander ESA: Jeremy Lowe, Michelle Orr, Elena Vandebrook, Damien Kunz II. Table of Contents Executive summary of project goals and results……………………………………2-6 Progress in Addressing the Project’s Objectives…………………………………...6-11 Description of Project Components (substantive tasks)……………………………11-13 Partnerships…………………………………………………………………………13 Project Evaluation - Summary of monitoring results……………………………….13-18 Summary of Expected Outputs and Outcomes/Accomplished Deliverables………..17-18 Key messages, lessons learned and project implications……………………………18-19 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….20 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………..Attached II. Executive summary of project goals and results Introduction and project description The San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Near-shore Linkages Project is a multi-
    [Show full text]
  • Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals a Report of Habitat Recommendations
    Baylands Ecosystem Baylands Ecosystem Teams of Bay Area environmental scientists have assessed abitat Goals the past and present conditions of the baylands ecosystem and recommended ways to improve its ecological health. This report presents the Baylands Ecosystem Goals. Habitat Goals Habitat Goals H A Report of Habitat Recommendations Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project Db Deep Bay/Channel Basic Baylands Facts Sb Shallow Bay/Channel The baylands exist around the Bay between the lines of high and Tf Tidal Flat low tide. They are the lands touched by the tides, plus the lands that Tm Tidal Marsh the tides would touch in the absence of any levees or other unnat- Tp Tidal Marsh Pan ural structures. Lg Lagoon There are 73,000 acres of tidal baylands and 139,000 acres of diked Bc Beach/Dune baylands. Ag Agricultural Bayland There used to be 23 miles of sandy beaches. Now there are about Dw Diked Wetland seven miles of beaches. Most of the present beaches occur in differ- Sp Salt Pond ent locations than the historical beaches. St Storage or Treatment Pond There used to be 190,000 acres of tidal marsh with 6,000 miles of Uf Undeveloped Bay Fill channels and 8,000 acres of shallow pans. Now there are 40,000 Df Developed Bay Fill acres of tidal marsh with about 1,000 miles of channels and 250 Pr Perennial Pond acres of pans. Rw Riparian Forest/Willow Grove Only 16,000 acres of the historical tidal marsh remain. The rest of Mg Moist Grassland the present tidal marsh has naturally evolved from tidal flat, been Gr Grassland/Vernal Pool Complex restored from diked baylands, or muted by water control structures.
    [Show full text]
  • 1954 Engineers News
    . ·... - .... ~ -~- -~ . .. !--· .. ~ , . ; \ .OP ERATI:NG ENGINE'ERS .LOCAL l ·sTATIONARY ·ENGI·NEERS LOCA~ 39 .- . VOl. 12-No. 4 SAN fRANCISCO. • CALIFORNIA APRIL, 1954 Cdliforitia, NeVada Members- I. I ·E 8 ~ CD ti t r1 ry IS-. it Last Day to Register: In Calif.-- April 15; in NeYada, April 30 YO~ M~ ST ~ ~ Gg;) 'f g~ !?~~- tion for another term- by default of the v oters. · 1. F OM fwve fli'HHI' ed since yo1_1 knzt registered, er There are millions of people all You dffd fG.@f v ote i n the l ti.~st ge raetr e:li ele(;ticm, or ai:ound the world who would give their right a.rm to become Ameri­ 3. Y©u lwve duaru;:~d ;•oa~ r name ·or just come can citizens,. and you can be sure of ~ g e, or ,. the y would treas ure a right and ANOTHER ENGINEER JO~Th i s look-down view from high over a duty such as voting. They would the San Francisco Bay shows the . recently com pleted Texa.s Oil Com~ 4. r 024 have n~t registered in the state bef-ore. do a tiwusand · times more than pany plant at Richmond. A num ber of: Local 3 m en, worldng for vario1L1S. we !lo· as citizens .lust rfor the pre­ local firms, participated in m ost phases of construction on this n eMr We cannot sttess too strongly the importanc"e of all Oper­ cious ·right of citizenship. · pl~t. Picttire was taken by Bro. J im Jennings of Local 3. a:ting Engineers taking part in this year's vital elections, ana The rest of th'e world also is.
    [Show full text]