DOCSLIB.ORG

Invasive Spartina Project (Cordgrass)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Invasive Spartina Project (Cordgrass) SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT 2612-A 8th Street ● Berkeley ● California 94710 ● (510) 548-2461 Preserving native wetlands PEGGY OLOFSON PROJECT DIRECTOR [email protected] Date: July 1, 2011 INGRID HOGLE MONITORING PROGRAM To: Jennifer Krebs, SFEP MANAGER [email protected] From: Peggy Olofson ERIK GRIJALVA FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGER Subject: Report of Work Completed Under Estuary 2100 Grant #X7-00T04701 [email protected] DREW KERR The State Coastal Conservancy received an Estuary 2100 Grant for $172,325 to use FIELD OPERATIONS ASSISTANT MANAGER for control of non-native invasive Spartina. Conservancy distributed the funds [email protected] through sub-grants to four Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) partners, including Cali- JEN MCBROOM fornia Wildlife Foundation, San Mateo Mosquito Abatement District, Friends of CLAPPER RAIL MONITOR‐ ING MANAGER Corte Madera Creek Watershed, and State Parks and Recreation. These four ISP part- [email protected] ners collectively treated approximately 90 net acres of invasive Spartina for two con- MARILYN LATTA secutive years, furthering the baywide eradication of invasive Spartina restoring and PROJECT MANAGER 510.286.4157 protecting many hundreds of acres of tidal marsh (Figure 1, Table 1). In addition to [email protected] treatment work, the grant funds also provided laboratory analysis of water samples Major Project Funders: collected from treatment sites where herbicide was applied, to confirm that water State Coastal Conser‐ quality was not degraded by the treatments. vancy American Recovery & ISP Partners and contractors conducted treatment work in accordance with Site Spe- Reinvestment Act cific Plans prepared by ISP (Grijalva et al. 2008; National Oceanic & www.spartina.org/project_documents/2008-2010_site_plans_doc_list.htm), and re- Atmospheric Admini‐ stration ported in the 2008-2009 Treatment Report (Grijalva & Kerr, 2011; U.S. Minerals Manage‐ www.spartina.org/project_documents/2008-2009_treatment_rept_list.htm). ment Service, Coastal Impact Assistance Water quality samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the Aquatic Program Pesticide Application Plan and Addendum (Kerr 2009; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.spartina.org/project_documents/2009_APAP_Updated_dec09.pdf, San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement www.spartina.org/project_documents/2009_APAP_Addendum.pdf). Fund The results of the water quality monitoring are presented in the Water Quality Report Association of Bay Area Governments for 2007-2010 (Kerr 2011; www.spartina.org/project_documents/2007- State Wildlife Conserva‐ 10_WQMonRept.htm). tion Board CALFED Bay Delta Inventory and efficacy monitoring were conducted in accordance with the Monitor- Program ing Program Quality Assurance Document (“QAD”; Hogle et al. 2008, updated 2009; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service www.spartina.org/project_documents/QAD_2009_Update_All(032410).pdf). National Fish and The efficacy of treatment and the change in Spartina coverage over time was reported Wildlife Foundation in the 2008-2009 Monitoring Report (Hogle, 2011; Website: www.spartina.org/project_documents/2008-09_MonReport.htm). The text, tables, and www.spartina.org figures of the monitoring report are provided as Attachment 1 of this report. Pages 73-80 of the report provide excellent illustration of the successful restoration of pre- invasion marsh conditions following Spartina eradication. The San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project is a project of the State Coastal Conservancy, managed by Conservancy staff and independent contractors under their direction. Outcomes A nnual Inventory of Non-native Spartina in the Since its first full-scale con- San Francisco Bay trol season in 2005 (pilot 140 projects assessing various 120 treatment approaches on se- 100 lected sites were done in 80 60 2004), the ISP has reduced 40 the net area of non-native Spartina Inventory (HA) 20 Spartina by more than 90%, 0 Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall and is believed to be on on- 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 200 7 200 8 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 Year track for successful eradica- tion within the next decade. Most remaining sites are at levels well below 1% of their historic peak infestation levels, and correspondingly, most of the remaining infestations cover less than 1% of the total site area. It is anticipated that by 2013 up to 90% of the 170 sites currently infested with non-native Spartina will have achieved the first year of ‘zero- detect’ of non-native Spartina; on track for 3 years of ‘zero-detect’ constituting eradication on those sites. The status of treated marshes following removal of the vegetative cover provided by non-native Spartina has been a large-scale return to a native-plant dominated condi- tion at suitable elevations and a return to the native mudflat condition at lower eleva- tions. An example of significant passive revegetation of treated areas can be seen at the Eden Landing marsh complex in Union City, where treatment on the central channel of Old Alameda Creek has been ongoing since 2005. Non-native Spartina has been nearly extirpated from the Creek, and as of 2011, the banks of the Creek that were formerly infested are dominated (in many cases with 100% cover) with native tidal marsh plant species like Sarcocornia spp, Jaumea carnosa, Frankenia salina, Distichlis spicata, and others. In contrast, at the Colma Creek complex in South San Francisco, the pre-invasion condition of the majority of the area was mudflat. Subse- quent to control work there, the area has transitioned back to mudflat-dominated habi- tat. The interruption and reversal of the ongoing expansion of the non-native Spartina in these marshes has, in many cases, significantly altered the vegetative structure from a dense, invaded condition to a more open native condition. As the marshes are allowed to recover from the Spartina invasion, it is anticipated that historical vegeta- tive complexity and density will be passively reestablished in most marshes. The change in vegetative structure following treatment has had anticipated effects on several animal species in infested marshes, especially the California Clapper Rail. At most locations where clapper rail were present within the non-native Spartina, local populations decreased during the first 4-6 years of treatment, sometimes notably, likely due to removal of protective cover provided by the cordgrass. At many of these locations, especially those where treatment efforts were begun earlier, clapper rail populations have shown signs of stabilizing or slowly increasing by 2010 and 2011 (citation) as native marsh vegetative structure has re-established. A few sites showed significant clapper rail declines, as had been predicted at the outset of the control pro- gram, as they had both a high density and cover of non-native Spartina hybrids and high rail populations. Prior to the establishment of the non-native Spartina, these ar- Estuary 2100 Grant #X7-00T04701 2 Final Report San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project July 1, 2011 eas previously had no, or little, tall vegetative cover, and the clapper rail populations had appeared or increased rapidly in response to the new, introduced habitat. Where an established native marsh was subsequently invaded by non-native Spartina, clap- per rail numbers show greater resilience to the removal of the vegetative structure provided by non-native Spartina. Although this has not been quantitatively studied, it is possibly due to underlying channel and hydrological complexity, native plant pres- ence (even at a low level beneath the non-native Spartina canopy) and consequent availability to recolonize the treated site and a developed food web that could re- bound after the removal of the non-native Spartina stressor . Since the vast majority of the non-native Spartina historically present in the Estuary has been removed as of the 2010 Treatment Season, and most remaining stands are disparate, stunted and represent fractional percentages of the marshlands where they are found, almost all impacts associated with the removal of the vegetative cover pro- vided by non-native Spartina have been realized. Treated marshes will continue on a trajectory of passive restoration of native marsh structure and composition. Over the medium to longer term, it is anticipated that rail populations will closely track pre- Spartina invasion levels as marshes revert to native conditions. Impacts associated with ISP activities going forward will predominantly be related to the potential to harass clapper rail as a result of monitoring, restoration or treatment activities, rather than habitat removal. Achievement of Objectives The Invasive Spartina Project initiated an aggressive Spartina treatment effort in 2005, and has successfully reduced the net area of invasive Spartina from greater than 800 acres, to less than 100 acres in six years. This is an exceptional accomplishment by any weed eradication standards, and it is made more significant by the number of environmental, physical, financial, and other challenges that have been overcome. The success has been at a cost of $1.5-2M per year, but it has helped to protect bil- lions of dollars of past, present, and future tidal marsh restoration projects, and pre- serve the priceless balance of the San Francisco Estuary ecosystem. The treatment work conducted by the four grantees under the Estuary 2100 Grant funding played a significant role in helping to achieve
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin
    Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Late Holocene Anthropogenic Depression of Sturgeon in San Francisco Bay, California
    Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology | Vol. 35, No. 1 (2015) | pp. 3–27 Late Holocene Anthropogenic Depression of Sturgeon in San Francisco Bay, California JACK M. BROUGHTON Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 ERIK P. MARTIN Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 BRIAN MCENEANEY McEaneaney Construction Inc, 10182 Worchester Cir., Truckee, CA 96161 THOMAS WAKE Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles DWIGHT D. SIMONS Consulting Archaeologist, 2334 Tiffany Way, Chico, CA Prehistoric resource depression has been widely documented in many late Holocene contexts characterized by expanding human population densities, and has been causally linked to a wide range of other significant changes in human behavior and biology. Some of the more detailed records of this phenomenon have been derived from the San Francisco Bay area of California, including a possible case of anthropogenic sturgeon depression, but evidence for the latter was derived from limited fish-bone samples. We synthesize and analyze a massive ichthyoarchaeological data set here, including over 83,000 identified fish specimens from 30 site components in the central San Francisco Bay, to further test this hypothesis. Allometric live weight relationships from selected elements are established to reconstruct size change in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) through time, and—collectively—the data show significant linear declines over the last 3,000 years in the relative abundance of sturgeon compared to all other identified fishes, as well as declines in the maximum and mean weights of the harvested fish. Both these patterns are consistent with resource depression and do not appear to be related to changes in the estuarine paleoenvironment.
    [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]
  • Proposal for Pillar Point Rvpark Public Restroom and Green Space Design,Engineering,Permitting
    PPRROOPPOOSSAALL FFOORR PPIILLLLAARR PPOOIINNTT RRVV PPAARRKK PPUUBBLLIICC RREESSTTRROOOOMM AANNDD GGRREEEENN SSPPAACCEE DDEESSIIGGNN,, EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG,, PPEERRMMIITTTTIINNGG AANNDD CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN SSUUPPPPOORRTT SSEERRVVIICCEESS Submitted to: San Mateo County Harbor District Submitted by: Questa Engineering Corporation In Association with: Ware Associates Zeiger Engineers, Inc. mack5 October 7, 2019 October 7, 2019 San Mateo County Harbor District Attn: Deputy Secretary of the District 504 Ave Alhambra, Ste. 200 El Granada, CA 94018 Subject: Proposal for Pillar Point RV Park Public Restroom and Green Space Design, Engineering, Permitting and Construction Support Services Dear Mr. Moren: Questa Engineering Corporation is pleased to present this Proposal for the Pillar Point Project. We have assembled a highly qualified team, including Ware Associates (architecture/engineering services), Zeiger Engineers, Inc. (electrical engineering), and mack5 (cost estimating). Questa is widely recognized as one of California’s leading park and trail planning and engineering design firms for open space and natural park areas in constrained and challenging sites, including coastal and beach areas. We also have extensive experience in trail planning and design in parks, and sites with complex environmental and geotechnical issues. Questa provides complete services in planning, landscape architecture and engineering design of recreational improvement projects, from preliminary engineering investigations/feasibility studies and constraints
    [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]
  • Attachment Iii: Baseline Status and Cumulative Effects for the San Francisco Bay Listed Species
    ATTACHMENT III: BASELINE STATUS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY LISTED SPECIES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: ALAMEDAWHIPSNAKE ............................................................................................ 6 1.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................................... 6 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE........................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Factors affecting species within the action area ............................................... 6 1.2.1.1 Urban development .................................................................................... 7 1.2.1.2 Fire suppression ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.1.3 Predation .................................................................................................... 9 1.2.1.4 Grazing practices ..................................................................................... 10 1.2.1.5 Non-native species ................................................................................... 10 1.2.2 Baseline Status ................................................................................................ 11 1.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 13 2: BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY ....................................................................... 14 2.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..................................................................................
    [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]
  • 50K Course Guide
    50K COURSE GUIDE IMPORTANT UPDATES (11/02/2017) • NEW COURSE MODIFICATION - Old Inn to Muir Beach • New 2017 Start & Finish Locations • On-Course Nutrition Information • UPDATED Crew and spectator information RACE DAY CHECKLIST PRE-RACE PREPARATION • Review the shuttle and parking information on the website and make a plan for your transportation to the start area. Allow extra time if you are required or planning to take a shuttle. • Locate crew- and spectator-accessible Aid Stations on the course map and inform your family/friends where they can see you on-course. Review the crew and spectator information section of this guide for crew rules and transportation options. • If your distance allows, make a plan with your pacer to meet you at a designated pacer aid station. Review the pacer information section of this guide for pacer rules and transportation options. • Locate the designated drop bag aid stations and prepare a gear bag for the specific drop bag location(s). Review the drop bag information section of this guide for more information regarding on-course drop bag processes and policies. • Pick up your bib and timing device at a designated packet pickup location. • Attend the Pre-Race Panel Discussion for last-minute questions and advice from TNF Athletes and the Race Director. • Check the weather forecast and plan clothing and extra supplies accordingly for both you and your friends/family attending the race and Finish Festival. It is typically colder at the Start/Finish area than it is in the city. • Make sure to have a hydration and fuel plan in place to ensure you are properly nourished throughout your race.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle on Many Fronts
    RISING REALITY The Risk The Embarcadero The Future The Shorelines Resources Battle on many fronts The Bay Area faces a common threat along its shores, but must meet it with an array of ambitious and creative responses By John King November 2016 Boardwalks along the edge of the Alviso Salt Marsh restoration project allow visitors to enjoy the surrounding area on the edge of San Francisco Bay in Alviso. Michael Macor, The Chronicle The levee that rings Oakland International Airport seemingly has nothing in common with the salt­crusted stretch of flat land alongside Menlo Park’s Bayfront Park. One is a 7­foot­high line of boulders, an engineered barrier between the tidal flows that surge in through the Golden Gate twice daily and the runways used by 10,000 commercial flights every month. The other is quiet desolation, a white void dotted with stagnant pools of water. Both, though, are examples of the Bay Area shoreline at risk from the long­term effects of sea level rise — and reminders that there’s no single way to prepare for what might lie ahead. RISINGThe REALITY correct remed yThe in someRisk areas The of Embarcadero shoreline will in vTheolv eFuture forms of naThetural Shorelines healing, wi thResources restored and managed marshes that provide habitat for wildlife and trails for people. But when major public investments or large residential communities are at risk, barriers might be needed to keep out water that wants to come in. It’s a future where now­isolated salt ponds near Silicon Valley would be reunited with the larger bay, while North Bay farmland is turned back into marshes.
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Marsh Creek Watershed Marsh Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the eastern slopes of Mt. Diablo to Suisun Bay in the northern San Francisco Estuary. Its watershed consists of about 100 square miles. The headwaters of Marsh Creek consist of numerous small, intermittent and perennial tributaries within the Black Hills. The creek drains to the northwest before abruptly turning east near Marsh Creek Springs. From Marsh Creek Springs, Marsh Creek flows in an easterly direction entering Marsh Creek Reservoir, constructed in the 1960s. The creek is largely channelized in the lower watershed, and includes a drop structure near the city of Brentwood that appears to be a complete passage barrier. Marsh Creek enters the Big Break area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta northeast of the city of Oakley. Marsh Creek No salmonids were observed by DFG during an April 1942 visual survey of Marsh Creek at two locations: 0.25 miles upstream from the mouth in a tidal reach, and in close proximity to a bridge four miles east of Byron (Curtis 1942).
    [Show full text]