DOCSLIB.ORG

38Th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Salmonid Restoration Federation’s Mission Statement 38th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference Salmonid Restoration Federation was formed in 1986 to help stream March 31 – April 3, 2020 Santa Cruz, CA restoration practitioners advance the art and science of restoration. Salmonid Restoration Federation promotes restoration, stewardship, 2020 Vision for California’s Salmonscape and recovery of California native salmon, steelhead, and trout populations through education, collaboration, and advocacy. 38 th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference • 2020, Santa Cruz, CA Conference • 2020, Restoration Salmonid Annual SRF Goals & Objectives 1. To provide affordable technical education and best management practices trainings to the watershed restoration community. Conference Co-Sponsors Balance Hydrologics, Inc., Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, 2. Conduct outreach to constituents, landowners, and decision-makers Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, California American Water, California Conservation Corps, to inform the public about the plight of endangered salmon and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Water Resources, the need to preserve and restore habitat to recover salmonid California State Coastal Conservancy, CalTrans, California Trout - North Coast, Cardno, cbec, inc., City of Santa Cruz-Water Branch, County of Santa Cruz, East Bay Municipal Utility District, populations. Environmental Science Associates, Eureka Water Probes, FISHBIO, GHD, Green Diamond Resource Company - CA Timberlands Division, 3. Advocate for continued restoration funds, protection of habitat, Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District, HDR, ICF International, KSN, Inc., enhanced instream flows, and recovery of imperiled salmonids. Lyme Redwood Forest Company, LLC, Marin Municipal Water District, McBain & Associates, Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, Michael Love and Associates, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, NOAA Fisheries, Northern California Council – Fly Fishers International, Salmonid Restoration Federation, 425 Snug Alley, Unit D, Eureka, California 95501 Northern California Water Association, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Pacific Watershed Associates, Prunuske Chatham, Inc., Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc. [email protected] L www.calsalmon.org and Usal Redwood Forest Company, Restoration Design Group, Rincon Consultants, Inc., Samara Restoration, San Lorenzo Valley Water District, San Mateo Resource Conservation District, Solano E S T. 19 7 6 County Water Agency, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, Sonoma Water, Graphic Design & Layout Stillwater Sciences, The Nature Conservancy, Trinity River Restoration Program, by Jeri Fergus of Trees Foundation Trout Unlimited, Valley Water, Waterways Consulting, Inc., Westervelt Ecological Services, www.treesfoundation.org Wildlife Conservation Board, William Rich and Associates, WRA, Inc. e Virtual 38th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference 2020 Vision for California’s Salmonscape Today is the day that the SRF Conference Proceedings would have been going to the printer in preparation for the 38th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference in Santa Cruz. The Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference is one of the few conferences that still prints a conference proceedings to have something tangible to provide at the conference, to create a lasting resource, and to honor the presenters and coordinators who generously share their knowledge and expertise. Dana Stolzman, The theme of this year’s conference is 2020 Vision for California’s SRF Executive Director Salmonscape with a focus on preserving California’s wild salmon and Conference Agenda Coordinator population with the acuity required for 2020 and beyond. In this surreal moment where we must indefi nitely postpone the conference, perhap s we will have the time and space to cultivate a keener vision about viable recovery actions, and the delicate act of balancing human actions with community and watershed needs. The coronavirus global pandemic threatens our health and social norms including the freedom to convene and strategize for our beloved salmon. A week ago cancelling our annual conference seemed unthinkable, and today we know it to be inevitable and the right thing to do given the gravity of this unprecedented pandemic. Our minds are fl exible, we can adapt to new information and scientifi c input. Adaptability—the predominant trait of the salmon and watershed restoration fi eld. Salmon and steelhead survive through adaptation, and so will the restoration fi eld. Protecting, conserving, and restoring California wild salmon and steelhead populations will require laser focus on restoration strategies that show a strong fi sh response. If our best thinking got us to this precipice of salmonid recovery, our way forward will require clarity and acuity beyond what we have practiced in the past decade. The salmon restoration fi eld intersects with many disciplines including science, engineering, communities, infrastructure, planning, food production, and land use practices. These intersections animate the lively debate and discussions about the most appropriate strategies and techniques to achieve restoration milestones. Nowhere is this more evident than the SRF Conference, where practitioners from many fi elds converge to address the very issues that are germane to salmonid recovery. Like salmon, the SRF Conference has had to adapt to cataclysmic changes that limit our movement and pose risks to our health and collective wellbeing. Our movement is nothing if not resourceful and adaptive. SRF will reschedule the conference in Santa Cruz as soon as it is prudent and feasible to do so. Producing the conference is a yearlong interactive process that engages SRF’s Board of Directors, our co-sponsors, and our colleagues. We sincerely thank all of the fi eld tour, workshop, and session coordinators who did an outstanding job of creating a dynamic agenda and were able to pivot and lead by example in this trying time. SRF greatly appreciates all of our co-sponsors who generously contribute their ideas, time, and resources to the production of the conference. Thank you to all of the SRF members, presenters, and conference attendees who have showed compassion and patience in this unprecedented time. We shall persist! Table of Contents Tuesday, March 31 Fish Passage Design for Road Crossings Workshop and Field Tour ...............................14 Workshop Coordinators: Michael Love, P.E ., Michael Love & Associates, Inc. and Ross Taylor, Ross Taylor and Associates Field Tour Presenters: Steve Wiesner, County of Santa Cruz, Department of Public Works and Gary Kittleson, Kittleson Environmental Assessing Ecological Risks from Streamflow Diversions in Coastal California Streams Workshop .........................................................................15 Workshop Coordinators: Bill Trush, Co-Director, River Institute, Department of Environmental Science and Management, Humboldt State University; Valerie Zimmer, State Water Resources Control Board; and Katrina Nystrom, M.S. Student, Department of Environmental Science and Management, Humboldt State University Restoring Processes— San Clemente Dam Removal and Floodplain Restoration, Carmel River Field Tour ..16 Field Tour Coordinator: Tommy Williams, Ph.D., NOAA Fisheries, Southwest Fisheries Science Center Field Tour Leaders: Brian Cluer, Ph.D., NMFS West Coast Region California Coastal Office; Amy East, USGS, Pacific Coastal Marine Science Center; Christy Fischer, Santa Lucia Conservancy; Tim Frahm, Trout Unlimited; and Rafael Payan, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Los Padres Dam Removal and Fish Passage Tour ............................................................17 Field Tour Coordinator: Brian LeNeve, Carmel River Steelhead Association Field Tour Leaders: Brian LeNeve, Carmel River Steelhead Association, Haley Ohms, Ph.D., UC Santa Cruz & NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, and Beverly Chaney, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Cal Am Dam Keeper It Takes a Watershed:Fisheries Recovery in the Butano / Pescadero Watershed Tour ......................................................................18 Field Tour Leaders: Jim Robins, Alnus Ecological; Joe Issel, San Mateo Resource Conservation District; Tim Hyland, CA State Parks; Joe Pecharich, NOAA Restoration Center; Jon Jankovitz, CDFW; John Klochak, USFWS; and Chris Hammersmark and Sam Diaz, cbec, Inc. Wednesday, April 1 Low-Tech Process-based Restoration with Beaver and Wood: Jump-Starting Structurally Starved Streams Workshop .................................................19 Workshop Coordinators: Eli Asarian, Riverbend Sciences; Elijah Portugal, California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and Joe Wheaton, Ph.D., Utah State University Introduction to the Low-tech Process-based Restoration of Riverscapes Design Manual .............. 20 Joe Wheaton, Ph.D., Utah State University page 2 38th Annual SRF Conference Temperature, Hydrological, and Fish-passage Impacts of Beaver-based Stream Restoration: Hypotheses, Models, Data, and the Way Forward with Low-tech Process-based Restoration ...... 21 Chris Jordan, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center Riparian Vegetation and Stream Channel Response to Meadow Restoration Using Synthetic Beaver Dams in Childs Meadow, CA ................................... 22 Kristen Wilson, Ph.D., The Nature Conservancy California’s
Recommended publications
  • Flood Insurance?

    Flood Insurance?

    Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program The passage of the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program in 2012 has made the community’s long term goals for protecting the future of the Santa Clara Valley possible, including: • Supplying safe, healthy water • Retrofitting dams and critical infrastructure for earthquakes • Reducing toxins, hazards and contaminants • Restoring wildlife habitat in our waterways • Providing natural flood protection Even though we are in a drought, flooding can happen. Santa Clara County has had several damaging floods over the years, Extreme dry conditions can harden the ground. Within the first few most notably in 1995 and 1997 along the Guadalupe River and 1998 days of heavy rain, the ground can deflect water into streams and along Coyote and San Francisquito creeks. Call your city’s floodplain creeks, increasing the chances of flash flooding. It can strike quickly manager or the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Community with little or no warning. Projects Unit at 408.630.2650 to determine if you are in a floodplain. Floodwater can flow swiftly through neighborhoods and away from The water district’s flood prevention and flood awareness outreach streams when creeks “overbank” or flood. Dangerously fast-moving efforts reduce flood insurance rates by as much as 10 percent. FEMA’s floodwaters can flow thousands of feet away from the flooded creek National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System (CRS) within minutes. evaluates the flood protection efforts that CRS communities make and provides a rating. While the chances may seem slim for a 1 percent flood* to occur, the real odds of a 1 percent flood are greater than one in four during the In our area, *participating CRS communities (noted on the magnet) earn length of a 30-year mortgage.
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office

    0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office

    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville

  • D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology

    D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 Juvenile Steelhead Densities in the San Lorenzo, Soquel, Aptos and Corralitos Watersheds, Santa Cruz County, California Coastrange Sculpin Photographed by Jessica Wheeler D.W. ALLEY & Associates, Aquatic Biology Don Alley, Chad Steiner and Jerry Smith, Fishery Biologists With Field Assistance from Kristen Kittleson, Dawn Reis and Jessica Wheeler Prepared For the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Department Government Center, 701 Ocean Street, Room 312, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Funding From the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Soquel Creek Water District, Lompico County Water District, Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz May 2007 Project # 200-04 340 Old River Lane • P.O. Box 200 • Brookdale, California 95007 • (831) 338-7971 TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT SUMMARY...................................................................................10 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................31 I-1. Steelhead and Coho Salmon Ecology...................................................... 31 I-3. Project Purpose and General Study Approach ........................................ 34 METHODS ....................................................................................................35 M-1. Choice of Reaches and Vicinity of Sites to be Sampled- Methods........... 35 M-2. Classification of Habitat Types and Measurement of Habitat Characteristics.............................................................................................
  • Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay

    Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay

    Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Final Report Prepared for California Department of Fish & Game Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) 425 G Executive Court North Fairfield, CA 94534-4019 Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 SSEP Contract No. P0775013 30 September 2009 Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Final Report Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 USA Prepared at the Request of Carl Jochums California Department of Fish & Game Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) 425 G Executive Court North Fairfield, CA 94534-4019 Submitted to Bruce Joab, SSEP Coordinator and Contract Manager Office of Spill Prevention and Response CA Department of Fish and Game 1700 K Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone 916-322-7561 SSEP Contract No. PO775013 Note: This study was conducted in collaboration with Applied Science Associates (ASA), Inc., of South Kingston, RI, under SSEP Contract No. PO775010. ASA submitted a separate Final Report entitled Transport and Impacts of Oil Spills in San Francisco Bay – Implications for Response. i Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................
  • Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare

    Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare

    The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare Kathryn O’Reilly A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, Chair Professor Randolph T. Hester Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss Spring 2010 The thesis of Clare Kathryn O’Reilly, titled The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges, is approved: Chair Date: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf Date: Professor Randolph T. Hester Date: Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss University of California, Berkeley Spring 2010 The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges Copyright 2010 by Clare O’Reilly Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 CHAPTER 2: Methods 18 CHAPTER 3: Conceptual Framework 22 CHAPTER 4: Case Studies 46 Upper York Creek Dam 47 Searsville Dam 58 San Clemente Dam 72 Matilija Dam 84 Rindge Dam 99 CHAPTER 5: Synthesis & Recommendations 108 REFERENCES 124 APPENDICES 136 table OF COnTEnTS i List of Figures CHAPTER 1 Figure 1-1. Sediment deposition from upstream watershed (left) and resulting deposition in reservoir. 2 Figure 1-2. Transport impact of dams. (Wildman, 2006) 3 Figure 1-3. Dams in the US by height. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-4. Dams in the US by hazard potential. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-5. Delta deposition in reservoir. (Mahmood, 1987) 5 Figure 1-6. Example of reservoir sediment deposit. 5 Figure 1-7. Infilled reservoir. (Morris & Fan, 1998) 5 Figure 1-8. Bar-lin Dam on the Dahan River in Taiwan, full of sediment in 2006 four years after completion (left), and post-failure in 2007 (right).
  • Local Agency Management Plan for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

    Local Agency Management Plan for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

    Local Agency Management Plan For Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health 1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95112 408-918-3400 www.EHinfo.org July 2014 Local Agency Management Plan for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Santa Clara County, California Submitted to: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health July 2014 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................................ 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Geographical Area .................................................................................................................................... 1 Regulation of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems ............................................................................ 2 Santa Clara County OWTS Requirements ................................................................................................. 3 Organization of this LAMP ........................................................................................................................ 7 Section 2: Environmental Conditions, OWTS Usage and Water Quality Management in Santa Clara County .......................................................................................................................... 9 Surface
  • Memorial Sam Mcdonald Pescadero

    Memorial Sam Mcdonald Pescadero

    Topher Simon Topher permitted in trail camps. trail in permitted water is available at trail camps. Backpack stoves are are stoves Backpack camps. trail at available is water who register with the ranger at Memorial Park. No No Park. Memorial at ranger the with register who snakes, and banana slugs. banana and snakes, available for a fee on a drop-in basis for backpackers backpackers for basis drop-in a on fee a for available woodpeckers, Steller’s jays, garter snakes, gopher gopher snakes, garter jays, Steller’s woodpeckers, hikes passing through multiple parks. multiple through passing hikes Trail camps camps Trail at Shaw Flat and Tarwater Flat are are Flat Tarwater and Flat Shaw at tailed deer, raccoons, opossums, foxes, bobcats, bobcats, foxes, opossums, raccoons, deer, tailed State Park, offering the opportunity for several long long several for opportunity the offering Park, State Common wildlife in Sam McDonald includes black- includes McDonald Sam in wildlife Common Trailheads. The trail network also connects to Big Basin Redwoods Redwoods Basin Big to connects also network trail The State Park, and at the Old Haul Road and Tarwater Tarwater and Road Haul Old the at and Park, State leaf maple, and oak trees. oak and maple, leaf a number of trails with Portola Redwoods State Park Park State Redwoods Portola with trails of number a Ranger Station, Portola Trailhead, Portola Redwoods Redwoods Portola Trailhead, Portola Station, Ranger Douglas fir, madrone, California laurel, buckeye, big big buckeye, laurel, California madrone, fir, Douglas Pescadero Creek Park shares its eastern boundary and and boundary eastern its shares Park Creek Pescadero inter-park trail network trail inter-park from the Sam McDonald McDonald Sam the from The forests, dominated by coast redwood, also include include also redwood, coast by dominated forests, The rugged beauty offers a true escape.
  • Central Coast

    Central Coast

    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
  • San Mateo County BBE Final Report-2016.11.2

    San Mateo County BBE Final Report-2016.11.2

    Assessment and Management Prioritization Regime for the Bar-built Estuaries of San Mateo County Summary Report San Pedro Creek Prepared for: United States Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Area Coastal Program by: Central Coast Wetlands Group Moss Landing Marine Labs 8272 Moss Landing Rd. Moss Landing, CA 95039 November 2016 Summary Report: Bar-Built Estuaries of San Mateo County TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Background and Need .................................................................................................................................... 3 What are BBEs and Why are they Important ............................................................................................................ 3 BBE are the most dominant estuarine resource on the San Mateo County coastline .............................................. 4 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methods .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................................................
  • Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952

    Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952

    Our Mission The mission of California State Parks is to provide for the health, inspiration and xquisite sandstone Castle Rock education of the people of California by helping E to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological State Park diversity, protecting its most valued natural and formations and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. sculpted caves are among the treasured features within this California State Parks supports equal access. park’s vast wilderness. Prior to arrival, visitors with disabilities who need assistance should contact the park at (408) 867-2952. If you need this publication in an alternate format, contact [email protected]. CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 For information call: (800) 777-0369 (916) 653-6995, outside the U.S. 711, TTY relay service www.parks.ca.gov SaveTheRedwoods.org/csp Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952 © 2011 California State Parks (Rev. 2017) C astle Rock State Park is a place of The Smead and Partridge farms were abundant solitude, wilderness, high cliffs, the largest operations on the ridge, with and sweeping vistas. Unique patterns on orchards of apples, pears, walnuts, and weathered sandstone, lush forests, and grapes. Near the park’s interpretive shelter, stream-fed canyons make up the park’s heritage trees planted in the early 1900s diverse features. still bear fruit. From one of the highest ridges in the Creation of the Park Santa Cruz Mountains, visitors enjoy Judge Joseph Welch of Santa Clara Valley panoramic views of Monterey Bay.
  • Methyl and Total Mercury Spatial and Temporal Trends in Surficial Sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta

    Methyl and Total Mercury Spatial and Temporal Trends in Surficial Sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta

    Methyl and Total Mercury Spatial and Temporal Trends in Surficial Sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project Final Report Submitted to: Mark Stephenson California Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039 Submitted by: Wesley A. Heim Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Rd Moss Landing, CA 95039 [email protected] (email) 831-771-4459 (voice) Dr. Kenneth Coale Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Rd Moss Landing, CA 95039 Mark Stephenson California Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent studies indicate significant amounts of mercury are transported into the Bay-Delta from the Coastal and Sierra mountain ranges. In response to mercury contamination of the Bay-Delta and potential risks to humans, health advisories have been posted in the estuary, recommending no consumption of large striped bass and limited consumption of other sport fish. The major objective of the CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project “Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed” is to reduce mercury levels in fish tissue to levels that do not pose a health threat to humans or wildlife. This report summarizes the accomplishments of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) at Moss Landing as participants in the CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project. Specific objectives of MLML and CDF&G include: 1.
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK

    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