DOCSLIB.ORG

Chipps Island Tidal Marsh Restoration Study Project Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chipps Island Tidal Marsh Restoration Study Project Information 1. Proposal Title: Chipps Island Tidal Marsh Restoration Study 2. Proposal applicants: Trevor Kennedy, Fishery Foundation of California Thomas Cannon, HDR Engineering Inc. Curt Schmutte, DWR-ESO James Grummon, Condor Earth Technology 3. Corresponding Contact Person: Trevor Kennedy Fishery Foundation of California 5705 Audrey Way Fair Oaks, Ca, 95628 916 9671518 [email protected] 4. Project Keywords: Environmental Engineering Habitat Restoration, Wetland Wetlands, Tidal 5. Type of project: Implementation_Pilot 6. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? Yes If yes, is there an existing specific restoration plan for this site? No 7. Topic Area: Shallow Water, Tidal and Marsh Habitat 8. Type of applicant: Landowner 9. Location - GIS coordinates: Latitude: 38.057 Longitude: -121.913 Datum: Describe project location using information such as water bodies, river miles, road intersections, landmarks, and size in acres. Chipps Island, Suisun Marsh/Bay-Delta 10. Location - Ecozone: 2.1 Suisun Bay & Marsh 11. Location - County: Solano 12. Location - City: Does your project fall within a city jurisdiction? No 13. Location - Tribal Lands: Does your project fall on or adjacent to tribal lands? No 14. Location - Congressional District: 3 15. Location: California State Senate District Number: 4 California Assembly District Number: 8 16. How many years of funding are you requesting? 3 17. Requested Funds: a) Are your overhead rates different depending on whether funds are state or federal? No If no, list single overhead rate and total requested funds: Single Overhead Rate: 10 Total Requested Funds: $1,830,043 b) Do you have cost share partners already identified? Yes If yes, list partners and amount contributed by each: DWR-ESO $50,000 Fishery Foundation of California $50,000 c) Do you have potential cost share partners? No d) Are you specifically seeking non-federal cost share funds through this solicitation? No If the total non-federal cost share funds requested above does not match the total state funds requested in 17a, please explain the difference: 18. Is this proposal for next-phase funding of an ongoing project funded by CALFED? No Have you previously received funding from CALFED for other projects not listed above? Yes If yes, identify project number(s), title(s) and CALFED program. 98-B1009 Cosumnes River Salmonid Barrier Improvement Project ERP 19. Is this proposal for next-phase funding of an ongoing project funded by CVPIA? No Have you previously received funding from CVPIA for other projects not listed above? Yes If yes, identify project number(s), title(s) and CVPIA program. Stanislaus River Juvenile Salmonid CVPIA Cooperative 114200J033-USFWS distribution study Agreement Lower Calaveras River Salmon and Steelhead DCN#11332-1-G006 CVPIA-AFRP Life History/Limiting Factors Analysis 20. Is this proposal for next-phase funding of an ongoing project funded by an entity other than CALFED or CVPIA? No Please list suggested reviewers for your proposal. (optional) Erwin van Nieuwenhuyse USBR 916.978.5213 Beth Campbell NMFS 916.930.3611 [email protected] Jim Martin DWR-ESO 916.227.7581 [email protected] Randy Baxter CDFG-Bay Delta Division 209.942.7800 [email protected] 21. Comments: The landowner, the Fishery Foundation of California (FFC), is a private, non-profit fisheries restoration and research group dedicated to providing inovative solutions to complex resource problems. The FFC has the experience and resources to facilitate the completion of the proposed project in a cost effective and professional maner and the will to manage the proposed project indefinitely to ensure that it meets its restoration goals. Environmental Compliance Checklist Chipps Island Tidal Marsh Restoration Study 1. CEQA or NEPA Compliance a) Will this project require compliance with CEQA? Yes b) Will this project require compliance with NEPA? Yes c) If neither CEQA or NEPA compliance is required, please explain why compliance is not required for the actions in this proposal. 2. If the project will require CEQA and/or NEPA compliance, identify the lead agency(ies). If not applicable, put "None". CEQA Lead Agency: CA Department of Water Resouces NEPA Lead Agency (or co-lead:) U.S.Army Corps of Engineers NEPA Co-Lead Agency (if applicable): 3. Please check which type of CEQA/NEPA documentation is anticipated. CEQA -Categorical Exemption XNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration -EIR -none NEPA -Categorical Exclusion XEnvironmental Assessment/FONSI -EIS -none If you anticipate relying on either the Categorical Exemption or Categorical Exclusion for this project, please specifically identify the exemption and/or exclusion that you believe covers this project. 4. CEQA/NEPA Process a) Is the CEQA/NEPA process complete? No If the CEQA/NEPA process is not complete, please describe the dates for completing draft and/or final CEQA/NEPA documents. Draft completion 10/01/2002 b) If the CEQA/NEPA document has been completed, please list document name(s): 5. Environmental Permitting and Approvals (If a permit is not required, leave both Required? and Obtained? check boxes blank.) LOCAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS Conditional use permit Variance Subdivision Map Act Grading Permit General Plan Amendment Specific Plan Approval Rezone Williamson Act Contract Cancellation Other STATE PERMITS AND APPROVALS Scientific Collecting Permit Required CESA Compliance: 2081 Required CESA Compliance: NCCP 1601/03 CWA 401 certification Required Coastal Development Permit Reclamation Board Approval Notification of DPC or BCDC Required Other FEDERAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS ESA Compliance Section 7 Consultation Required ESA Compliance Section 10 Permit Rivers and Harbors Act CWA 404 Other PERMISSION TO ACCESS PROPERTY Permission to access city, county or other local agency land. Agency Name: Permission to access state land. Agency Name: Permission to access federal land. Agency Name: Permission to access private land. Landowner Name: ll 6. Comments. Land Use Checklist Chipps Island Tidal Marsh Restoration Study 1. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? Yes If you answered yes to #1, please answer the following questions: a) How many acres will be acquired? Fee: 0 Easement: 450 Total: 450 b) Will existing water rights be acquired? Yes c) Are any changes to water rights or delivery of water proposed? Yes If yes, please describe proposed changes. Diked non-tidal duck club flood-up will revert to tidal action. 2. Will the applicant require access across public or private property that the applicant does not own to accomplish the activities in the proposal? Yes 3. Do the actions in the proposal involve physical changes in the land use? No If you answered no to #3, explain what type of actions are involved in the proposal (i.e., research only, planning only). The project area is currently managed as a diked duck club with seasonal and permanent wetlands. The proposed project will create a tidal and muted tidal duck club. No changes in land use will occur. 4. Comments. Conflict of Interest Checklist Chipps Island Tidal Marsh Restoration Study Please list below the full names and organizations of all individuals in the following categories: Applicants listed in the proposal who wrote the proposal, will be performing the tasks listed in the proposal or who will benefit financially if the proposal is funded. Subcontractors listed in the proposal who will perform some tasks listed in the proposal and will benefit financially if the proposal is funded. Individuals not listed in the proposal who helped with proposal development, for example by reviewing drafts, or by providing critical suggestions or ideas contained within the proposal. The information provided on this form will be used to select appropriate and unbiased reviewers for your proposal. Applicant(s): Trevor Kennedy, Fishery Foundation of California Thomas Cannon, HDR Engineering Inc. Curt Schmutte, DWR-ESO James Grummon, Condor Earth Technology Subcontractor(s): Are specific subcontractors identified in this proposal? No Helped with proposal development: Are there persons who helped with proposal development? Yes If yes, please list the name(s) and organization(s): Thomas Cannon HDR Engineering Inc. Stephen Culberson DWR-ESO Mike Garello HDR Engineering Inc. Comments: Budget Summary Chipps Island Tidal Marsh Restoration Study Please provide a detailed budget for each year of requested funds, indicating on the form whether the indirect costs are based on the Federal overhead rate, State overhead rate, or are independent of fund source. Independent of Fund Source Year 1 Direct Benefits Other Total Task Task Salary Supplies & Services or Indirect Labor (per Travel Equipment Direct Direct Total Cost No. Description (per year) Expendables Consultants Costs Hours year) Costs Costs Ecological 1(ffc) Monitoring 40 1,720 430 0 0 0 0 0 2150.0 215 2365.00 Plan Pilot Project 2(ffc) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 Design Baseline 3(ffc) Ecological 1922 66,098 16,525 19,965 3,000 0 0 0 105588.0 10,584 116172.00 Survey Environmental 4(ffc) 60 2,580 645 0 0 0 0 0 3225.0 322 3547.00 Documentation Construction 5(ffc) 0 0 0 0 0 218,361 0 0 218361.0 0 218361.00 Pilot Post 6(ffc) Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 Monitoring Project Coordination 7(ffc) 60 2,580 645 0 0 0 0 0 3225.0 323 3548.00 and Management Cons 8(ffc) 270,000 270000.0 270000.00 Easement Ecological
Recommended publications
  • 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
  • Desilva Island

    Desilva Island

    SUISUN BAY 139 SUISUN BAY 140 SUISUN BAY SUISUN BAY Located immediately downstream of the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, Suisun Bay is the largest contiguous wetland area in the San Francisco Bay region. Suisun Bay is a dynamic, transitional zone between the freshwater input of the Central Valley rivers and the tidal influence of the upper San Francisco Estuary. This area supports a substantial number of nesting herons and egrets, including three of the largest colonies in the region. Although suburban development is rampant along the nearby Interstate 80 corridor to the north, most of the Suisun Bay area is protected from heavy development by the California Department of Fish and Game and a number of private duck clubs. Black- Active Great crowned or year Site Blue Great Snowy Night- Cattle last # Colony Site Heron Egret Egret Heron Egret County active Page 501 Bohannon Solano Active 142 502 Campbell Ranch Solano Active 143 503 Cordelia Road Solano 1998 145 504 Gold Hill Solano Active 146 505 Green Valley Road Solano Active 148 506 Hidden Cove Solano Active 149 507 Joice Island Solano 1994 150 508 Joice Island Annex Solano Active 151 509 Sherman Lake Sacramento Active 152 510 Simmons Island Solano 1994 153 511 Spoonbill Solano Active 154 512 Tree Slough Solano Active 155 513 Volanti Solano Active 156 514 Wheeler Island Solano Active 157 SUISUN BAY 141 142 SUISUN BAY Bohannon Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets nest in a grove of eucalyptus trees on a levee in Cross Slough, about 1.8 km east of Beldons Landing.
  • Suisun Marsh Protection Plan Map (PDF)

    Suisun Marsh Protection Plan Map (PDF)

    Proposed County Parks (Hill Slough, Fairfield Beldon’s Landing) Develop passive recreation facilities compatible with Marsh protection (e.g. fishing, picnicking, hiking, nature study.) Boat launching ramp may be constructed Suis nu at Beldon’s Landing. City Suisun Marsh 8 0 etaterstnI 80 a Protection Plan Map flHighway 12 San Francisco Bay Conservation (6) b .J ' and Development Commission I Denverton (7) I December 1976 ) I ~4 Slough Thomasson Shiloh Primary Management Area danyor, Potrero Hills ':__. .---) ... .. ... ~ . _,,. - (8) Secondary Management Area ~ ,. .,,,, Denverton ,,a !\.:r ~ Water-Related Industry Reserve Area c Beldon’s BRADMOOR ISLAND Slough (5) Landing t +{larl!✓' Road Boundary of Wildlife Areas and (9) Ecological Reserves Little I Honker (1) Grizzly Island Unit (9) Bay (2) Crescent Unit (4) Montezuma Slough (3) Island Slough Unit JOICE ISLAND (3) r (4) Joice Island Unit (5) Rush Ranch National Estuarine (10) Ecological Reserve Kirby Hill (6) Hill Slough Wildlife Area Suisun (7) Peytonia Slough Ecological Reserve (8) Grey Goose Unit GRIZZLY ISLAND (2) GRIZZLY ISLAND (9) Gold Hills Unit (10) Garibaldi Unit (11) West Family Unit (12) Goodyear Slough Unit Benicia Area Recommended for Aquisition a. Lawler Property I (11) Hills b. Bryan Property . ~-/--,~ c. Smith Property ,,-:. ...__.. ,, \ 1 Collinsville: Reserve seasonal marshes and Benicia Hills lowland grasslands for their Amended 2011 Grizzly Bay intrinsic value to marsh wildlife and Steep slopes with high landslide and soil to act as the buffer between the erosion potentials. Active fault location. Land (1) Marsh and any future water-related Collinsville Road use practices should be controlled to prevent uses to the east.
  • 255 Subpart B—First Coast Guard District

    255 Subpart B—First Coast Guard District

    SUBCHAPTER G—REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 100.703 Special Local Regulations; Recur- ring Marine Events, Sector St. Peters- NAVIGABLE WATERS burg. 100.704 Special Local Regulations; Marine Subpart A—General Events within the Captain of the Port Charleston. Sec. 100.01 Purpose and intent. 100.713 Annual Harborwalk Boat Race; 100.05 Definition of terms used in this part. Sampit River, Georgetown, SC. 100.10 Coast Guard-State agreements. 100.721 Special Local Regulations; Clear- 100.15 Submission of application. water Super Boat National Champion- 100.20 Action on application for event as- ship, Gulf of Mexico; Clearwater Beach, signed to State regulation by Coast FL. Guard-State agreement. 100.724 Annual Augusta Invitational Rowing 100.25 Action on application for event not Regatta; Savannah River, Augusta, GA. assigned to State regulation by Coast 100.732 Annual River Race Augusta; Savan- Guard-State agreement. nah River, Augusta, GA. 100.30 Approval required for holding event. 100.750–100.799 [Reserved] 100.35 Special local regulations. 100.40 Patrol of the regatta or marine pa- Subpart E—Eighth Coast Guard District rade. 100.45 Establishment of aids to navigation. 100.800 [Reserved] 100.50–100.99 [Reserved] 100.801 Annual Marine Events in the Eighth Coast Guard District. Subpart B—First Coast Guard District 100.850–100.899 [Reserved] 100.100 Special Local Regulations; Regattas and Boat Races in the Coast Guard Sec- Subpart F—Ninth Coast Guard District tor Long Island Sound Captain of the 100.900 [Reserved] Port Zone. 100.901 Great Lakes annual marine events.
  • San Francisco Bay Plan

    San Francisco Bay Plan

    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
  • Report of Science Advisors

    Report of Science Advisors

    Report of Science Advisors Solano County Natural Community Conservation Plan Habitat Conservation Plan November 2002 Reed Noss (Lead Reviewer and Editor), Ronald Amundson, Dick Arnold, Michael Bradbury, Sharon Collinge, Brenda Grewell, Richard Grosberg, Lester McKee, Phil Northen, Christina Swanson, and Ron Yoshiyama Facilitators: Bruce DiGennaro and Vance Russell TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................5 1.1 Role of Science Advisors..............................................................................................5 1.2 Science Advisors Workshop.........................................................................................6 1.3 Report Organization......................................................................................................7 2.0 Regional and Historical Context...............................................................................................7 2.1 Biodiversity of the Region............................................................................................8 2.2 Geography and Geology ...............................................................................................9 2.3 Climate and Hydrology...............................................................................................14 3.0 Data Gaps and
  • Summary of Findings About Circulation and the Estuarine Turbidity Maximum in Suisun Bay, California by David H

    Summary of Findings About Circulation and the Estuarine Turbidity Maximum in Suisun Bay, California by David H

    USGS o 23 science for a changing world Summary of Findings About Circulation and the Estuarine Turbidity Maximum in Suisun Bay, California by David H. Schoellhamer and Jon R. Burau Suisun Bay, California, is the (landward) and ebb (seaward) cur­ the tidally-averaged (residual) move­ most landward subembayment of San rents. Tidal currents are strongest dur­ ment of water caused by river inflow Francisco Bay (fig. 1) and is an impor­ ing full and new moons, called spring or wind. Tidal and residual currents tant ecological habitat (Cloern and tides, and weakest during half moons, carry and mix (transport) salt, others, 1983; Jassby and others, 1995). called neap tides. This sloshing back sediment, plankton, and other constit­ During the 1960s and 1970s, data col­ and forth is usually much greater than uents. Saltwater is heavier than lected in Suisun Bay were analyzed to develop a conceptual model of how water, salt, and sediment move within 122°30' 122°00' 121°30' 38°30' and through the Bay. This conceptual model has been used to manage fresh­ water flows from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Suisun Bay to improve habitat for several threatened GRIZZLY BAY Reserve Fleet and endangered fish species. Instru­ Channel / mentation used to measure water IONKERB AY $ Carquinez SACRAMENTO- velocity, salinity, and suspended- Strait SAN JOAOUIN RIVER DELTA solids concentration (SSC) greatly 5A<- improved during the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Suisun \ 38°00' Cutoff Mallard has utilized these new instruments to Island collect one of the largest, high-quality hydrodynamic and sediment data sets DELTA available for any estuary.
  • Trends in Hydrology and Salinity in Suisun Bay and the Western Delta

    Trends in Hydrology and Salinity in Suisun Bay and the Western Delta

    Trends in Hydrology and Salinity in Suisun Bay and the Western Delta Draft Version 1.2 June 2007 DRAFT Trends in Hydrology and Salinity in Suisun Bay and the Western Delta Draft Version 1.2 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 2 Objective..................................................................................................................................... 2 Approach..................................................................................................................................... 2 Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 3 Report Structure.......................................................................................................................... 7 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 8 1.1. Objectives of this review ................................................................................................. 8 1.2. Salinity Units................................................................................................................... 9 1.3. Temporal and Spatial Variability................................................................................... 13 1.4. Report Structure............................................................................................................
  • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062

    Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062

    FINAL ◦ MAY 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Reclamation District No. 2028 Stillwater Sciences (Bacon Island) 279 Cousteau Place, Suite 400 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Davis, CA 95618 Stockton, CA 95202 Stillwater Sciences FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Suggested citation: Reclamation District No. 2028. 2016. Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Davis, California for Reclamation District No. 2028 (Bacon Island), Stockton, California. Cover photo: View of Bacon Island’s northwestern levee corner and surrounding interior lands. May 2017 Stillwater Sciences i FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project PROJECT SUMMARY Project title Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Reclamation District No. 2028 CEQA lead agency name (Bacon Island) and address 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Department of Water Resources (DWR) Andrea Lobato, Manager CEQA responsible agencies The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) Deirdre West, Environmental Planning Manager David A. Forkel Chairman, Board of Trustees Reclamation District No. 2028 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Cell: (510) 693-9977 Nate Hershey, P.E. Contact person and phone District
  • Food Webs of the Delta, Suisun Bay, and Suisun Marsh: an Update on Current Understanding and Possibilities for Management Larry R

    Food Webs of the Delta, Suisun Bay, and Suisun Marsh: an Update on Current Understanding and Possibilities for Management Larry R

    OCTOBER 2016 SPECIAL ISSUE: STATE OF BAY–DELTA SCIENCE 2016, PART 2 Food Webs of the Delta, Suisun Bay, and Suisun Marsh: An Update on Current Understanding and Possibilities for Management Larry R. Brown1*, Wim Kimmerer2, J. Louise Conrad3, Sarah Lesmeister3, and Anke Mueller–Solger1 to species of concern; however, data from other Volume 14, Issue 3 | Article 4 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss3art4 regions of the estuary suggest that this conceptual model may not apply across the entire region. * Corresponding author: [email protected] Habitat restoration has been proposed as a method 1 California Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey of re-establishing historic food web processes to Sacramento, CA 95819 USA support species of concern. Benefits are likely for 2 Romberg Tiburon Center, San Francisco State University Tiburon, CA 94920 USA species that directly access such restored habitats, 3 California Department of Water Resources but are less clear for pelagic species. Several topics Sacramento, CA 95691 USA require attention to further improve the knowledge of food webs needed to support effective management, including: (1) synthesis of factors responsible for ABSTRACT low pelagic biomass; (2) monitoring and research on effects of harmful algal blooms; (3) broadening This paper reviews and highlights recent research the scope of long-term monitoring; (4) determining findings on food web processes since an earlier benefits of tidal wetland restoration to species of review by Kimmerer et al. (2008). We conduct this concern, including evaluations of interactions of review within a conceptual framework of the Delta– habitat-specific food webs; and (5) interdisciplinary Suisun food web, which includes both temporal and analysis and synthesis.
  • Field Assessment of Avian Mercury Exposure in the Bay-Delta Ecosystem

    Field Assessment of Avian Mercury Exposure in the Bay-Delta Ecosystem

    Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project Subtask 3B: Field assessment of avian mercury exposure in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Draft Final Report Submitted to Mark Stephenson Director Marine Pollution Studies labs Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholt Rd. Moss Landing, Ca 95039 Submitted by: Dr. Steven Schwarzbach USGS Biological Research Division Western Ecological Research Center 7801 Folsom Blvd. Sacramento California 95826 and Terry Adelsbach US Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Environmental Contaminants Division 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento Ca. 95825 1 BACKGROUND The Bay/Delta watershed has a legacy of mercury contamination resulting from mercury mining in the Coast Range and the use of this mercury in the amalgamation method for extraction of gold from stream sediments and placer deposits in the Sierra Nevada. Because mercury, and methylmercury in particular, strongly bioaccumulate in aquatic foodwebs there has been a reasonable speculation that widespread mercury contamination of the bay/delta from historic sources in the watershed could be posing a health threat to piscivorous wildlife. As a result this systematic survey of mercury exposure in aquatic birds was conducted in both San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The Delta component of the survey was subtask 3b of the CalFed mercury project. The San Francisco Bay component of the project was conducted at the behest of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2, San Francisco Bay. Results of both projects are reported on here because of overlap in methods and species sampled, the interconnectedness of the Bay/Delta estuary and the need to address avian wildlife risk of mercury in the region as a whole.
  • Environmental Assessment

    Environmental Assessment

    DRAFT Environmental Assessment Initial Actions for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Long-term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project INCOMPLETE – FOR DISUSSION PURPOSES U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region JUNE 2018 Mission Statements The Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region JUNE 2018 Near-Term Actions Environmental Assessment DRAFT, SUBJECT TO REVISION Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Need for the Proposal.......................................................................................... 3 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action .................................................................