Sr-Nd isotopic analyses of sand-sized sediment from the San Francisco Bay coastal system

A diverse suite of geochemical tracers, including 87Sr/86Sr and 143Nd/144Nd isotope ratios, the rare earth elements (REEs), and select trace elements were used to determine sand-sized sediment provenance and transport pathways within the San Francisco Bay coastal system. This study complements a large interdisciplinary effort (Barnard et al., 2012) that seeks to better understand recent geomorphic change in a highly urbanized and dynamic estuarine-coastal setting. Sand-sized sediment provenance in this geologically complex system is important to estuarine resource managers and was assessed by examining the geographic distribution of this suite of geochemical tracers from the primary sources (fluvial and rock) throughout the bay, adjacent coast, and beaches. Due to their intrinsic geochemical nature, 143Nd/144Nd isotopic ratios provide the most resolved picture of where sediment in this system is likely sourced and how it moves through this estuarine system into the Pacific Ocean. For example, Nd isotopes confirm that the predominant source of sand-sized sediment to Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Central Bay is the Sierra Nevada Batholith via the Sacramento River, with lesser contributions from the Napa and San Joaquin Rivers. Isotopic ratios also reveal hot-spots of local sediment accumulation, such as the basalt and chert deposits around the Golden Gate Bridge and the high magnetite deposits of Ocean Beach. Sand-sized sediment that exits San Francisco Bay accumulates on the ebb-tidal delta and is in part conveyed southward by long-shore currents. Broadly, the geochemical tracers reveal a complex story of multiple sediment sources, dynamic intra-bay sediment mixing and reworking, and eventual dilution and transport by energetic marine processes. Combined geochemical results provide information on sediment movement into and through San Francisco Bay and further our understanding of how sustained anthropogenic activities which limit sediment inputs to the system (e.g., dike and dam construction) as well as those which directly remove sediments from within the Bay, such as aggregate mining and dredging, can have long-lasting effects.

Heavy mineral analyses of sediment samples from the San Francisco Bay coastal system

Heavy or high-specific gravity minerals make up a small but diagnostic component of sediment that is well suited for determining the provenance and distribution of sediment transported through estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. By this means, we see that surficial sand-sized sediment in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System comes primarily from the Sierra Nevada and associated terranes by way of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and is transported with little dilution through the San Francisco Bay and out the Golden Gate. Heavy minerals document a slight change from the strictly Sierran-Sacramento mineralogy at the confluence of the two rivers to a composition that includes minor amounts of chert and other Franciscan Complex components west of Carquinez Strait. Between Carquinez Strait and the San Francisco Bar, Sierran sediment is intermingled with Franciscan-modified Sierran sediment. The latter continues out the Gate and turns southward towards beaches of the San Francisco Peninsula. The Sierran sediment also fans out from the San Francisco Bar to merge with a Sierran province on the shelf in the Gulf of the Farallones. Beach-sand sized sediment from the Russian River is transported southward to Point Reyes where it spreads out to define a Franciscan sediment province on the shelf, but does not continue southward to contribute to the sediment in the Golden Gate area.

Tomas Lopez's Geographic Atlas of Spain (1787) and its Hydrographic Network: GIS analysis of the Reyno de Jaen

Knowledge of the development of hydrographic networks can be useful for a number of research works in hydraulic engineering. We thus, intend to analyse the cartography regarding the first work that systematically encompasses the entire hydrographic network: Tomas Lopez’s Geographic Atlas of Spain (1787). In order to achieve this goal, we will first analyze –by way of the Geographic Information System (GIS) – both the present and referred historical cartographies. In comparing them, we will use the then-existing population centres that correspond to modern ones. The aim is to compare the following research variables in the hydrographic network: former toponyms, length of riverbeds and distance to population centres. The results of this study will show the variation in the riverbeds and the probable change in their denomination.

San Francisco, California, Earthquake and Fire, 1906 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: [San Francisco, California, showing the area destroyed by fire, April 18-21, 1906]. It was published by R.J. Waters & Co. in 1906. Scale [ca. 1:21,000]. Covers the northeastern portion of the city showing burnt district in red. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the California Zone III State Plane Coordinate System NAD83 (in Feet) (Fipszone 0403). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as the burnt district, roads, drainage, selected public buildings, wharves, and more. Relief shown by contours. This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from The Harvard Map Collection as part of the Imaging the Urban Environment project. Maps selected for this project represent major urban areas and cities of the world, at various time periods. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features at a large scale. The selection represents a range of regions, originators, ground condition dates, scales, and purposes.

San Francisco, California and vicinity, 1954 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the United States Geological Survey sheet map entitled: San Francisco and vicinity, California, 1954. It was published in 1957. Scale 1:24,000. Compiled from 1:24,000 scale maps of the San Quentin 1947, San Rafael 1954, Point Bonita 1954, San Francisco North 1947, and San Francisco South 1947 7.5 minute quadrangles. Hydrography compiled from USC&GS charts 5532 and 5402. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the California Zone III State Plane Coordinate System NAD27 (in Feet) (Fipszone 0403). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. USGS maps are typical topographic maps portraying both natural and manmade features. They show and name works of nature, such as mountains, valleys, lakes, rivers, vegetation, etc. They also identify the principal works of humans, such as roads, railroads, boundaries, transmission lines, major buildings, etc. Relief is shown with contour intervals 25 and 40 feet with supplementary contours at 5 and 20 foot intervals and spot heights. Please pay close attention to map collar information on projections, spheroid, sources, dates, and keys to grid numbering and other numbers which appear inside the neatline. This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from The Harvard Map Collection as part of the Imaging the Urban Environment project. Maps selected for this project represent major urban areas and cities of the world, at various time periods. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features at a large scale. The selection represents a range of regions, originators, ground condition dates, scales, and purposes.

European Criminal Law and General Principles of Union Law. Research Papers in Law, 5/2005

From the Introduction. The European Court of Justice, partly followed in this by the European legislator, has regulated Community law and policy through a set of general principles of law. For the Community legal order in the first pillar, general legal principles have developed from functional policy areas such as the internal market, the customs union, the monetary union, the common agricultural policy, the European competition policy, etc., which are of great importance for the quality and legitimacy of Community law. The principles in question are not so much general legal principles of an institutional character, such as the priority of Community law, direct effect or Community loyalty, but rather principles of law which shape the fundamental rights and basic rights of the citizen. I refer to the principle of legality, of nulla poena, the inviolability of the home, the nemo tenetur principle, due process, the rights of the defence, etc. Many of these legal principles have been elevated to primary Community law status by the European Court of Justice, often as a result of preliminary questions. Nevertheless, a considerable number of them have also been elaborated in the context of contentious proceedings before the Court of Justice, such as in the framework of European competition law and European public servants law.

With or without you...judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Research Papers in Law, 3/2007

From the Introduction. The study of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law of the regarding the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) is fascinating in many ways.1 First, almost the totality of the relevant case law is extremely recent, thereby marking the first ‘foundational’ steps in this field of law. This is the result of the fact that the AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999.2 Second, as the AFSJ is a new field of EU competence, it sets afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its member states, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) measure of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions beg for answers which should take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.3 Third, and as a consequence of the above, the vast majority of the ECJ’s judgments relating to the AFSJ are a) delivered by the Full Court or, at least, the Grand Chamber, b) with the intervention of great many member states and c) often obscure in content. This is due to the fact that the Court is called upon to set the foundational rules in a new field of EU law, often trying to accommodate divergent considerations, not all of which are strictly legal.4 Fourth, the case law of the Court relating to the AFSJ, touches upon a vast variety of topics which are not necessarily related to one another. This is why it is essential to limit the scope of this study. The content of, and steering for, the AFSJ were given by the Tampere European Council, in October 1999. According to the Tampere Conclusions, the AFSJ should consist of four key elements: a) a common immigration and asylum policy, b) judicial cooperation in both civil and penal matters, c) action against criminality and d) external action of the EU in all the above fields. Moreover, the AFSJ is to a large extent based on the Schengen acquis. The latter has been ‘communautarised’5 by the Treaty of Amsterdam and further ‘ventilated’ between the first and third pillars by decisions 1999/435 and 1999/436.6 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, mainly by means of international conventions (such as the Rome Convention of 1981 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and regulations (such as (EC) 44/20017 and (EC) 1348/20008) also form part of the AFSJ. However, the relevant case law of the ECJ will not be examined in the present contribution.9 Similarly, the judgments of the Court delivered in the course of Article 226 EC proceedings against member states, will be omitted.10 Even after setting aside the above case law and notwithstanding the fact that the AFSJ only dates as far back as May 1999, the judgments of the ECJ are numerous. A simple (if not simplistic) categorisation may be between, on the one hand, judgments which concern the institutional setting of the AFSJ (para. 2) and, on the other, judgments which are related to some substantive AFSJ policy (para. 3).

Decentralisation of EC Competition Law Enforcement and General Principles of Community Law. Research Papers in Law, 4/2004

From the Introduction. By virtue of Council Regulation No. 1/2003, as of 1st May 2004 the full application of EC competition law will be entrusted to national competition authorities (hereinafter NCAs) and national courts. The bold reform of EC competition law enforcement adheres to the system of executive federalism1 which characterises the EC legal system. The repartition of competences within the Community allocates implementation of Community law mainly at Member States level. Pursuant to Article 10 EC, they are responsible for the implementation of the measures which have been adopted at Community level for the achievement of the objectives specified in the EC Treaty. Consequently, the attainment of the Community objectives depends very much upon the cooperation of national authorities, which act in accordance with their own national procedural rules.2 The various national procedural rules present themselves as conduits through which Community law is implemented and enforced. While as a rule Community law is not designed to alter national procedural rules, the Community legal order cannot afford to leave national procedural rules untouched when they are liable to hamper the effective application of Community law....For reason of space, this contribution intends only to highlight some aspects of Regulation No. 1/2003 with regard to which general principles of Community law are able to condition national procedural rules.

The Legal Status and Influence of Decisions of International Organizations and other Bodies in the European Union. College of Europe Research Paper in Law 01/2014

Introduction. The European Union’s external action is not only defined by its influence on international developments, but also by its ability and the need to respond to those developments. While traditionally many have stressed the EU’s ‘autonomy’, over the years its ‘dependence’ on global developments has become more clear.2 International law has continued to play a key role in, not only in the EU’s external relations, but also in the Union’s own legal order.3 The purpose of this paper is not to assess the role or performance of the EU in international institutions.4 Rather it purports to reverse the picture and focus on a somewhat under-researched topic: the legal status of decisions of international organizations in the EU’s legal order.5 While parts of the status of these decisions relate to the status of international agreements and international customary law, it can be argued that decisions of international organizations and other international bodies form a distinct category. In fact, it has been observed that “this phenomenon has added a new layer of complexity to the already complex law of external relations of the European Union”.6 Emerging questions relate to the possible difference between decisions of international organizations of which the EU is a member (such as the FAO) and decisions of organizations where it is not (irrespective of existing competences in that area – such as in the ILO). Questions also relate to the hierarchical status of these decisions in the EU’s legal order and to the possibility of them being invoked in direct or indirect actions before the Court of Justice. This contribution takes a broad perspective on decisions of international organizations by including decisions taken in other international institutions which do not necessarily comply with the standard definition of international organizations,7 be it bodies set-up by multilateral conventions or informal (transnational / regulatory) bodies. Some of these bodies are relatively close to the EU (such as the Councils established by Association Agreements – see further Section 5 below); others operate at a certain distance. Limiting the analysis to formal international organizations will not do justice to the manifold relationships between the European Union and various international bodies and to the effects of the norms produced by these bodies. The term ‘international decisions’ is therefore used to refer to any normative output of international institutional arrangements.

EU-Turkey Summit on the refugee crisis Law and (dis)order? EPC Commentary, 21 March 2016

After many meetings and long hours of negotiations, the overwhelming feeling when a deal between the EU and Turkey was struck, was one of “mission accomplished”! Faced with an unprecedented crisis and forced to appease increasingly hostile public opinions back home, EU leaders had only one objective in mind: reducing the number of migrants arriving in the EU so that order can return in the framework of EU rules. However, a closer look at the Summit Conclusions and the EU-Turkey statement leaves a bitter taste, according to Yves Pascouau. In this Commentary, he questions the feasibility of the final EU-Turkey deal, saying that it creates more problems than it solves: besides the obvious legal and practical issues, it is far from certain which member states will be willing to do their part, or whether or not the EU can come up with a strategic vision on human mobility for the future.