DOCSLIB.ORG

2009 the Pulse of the Estuary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2009 the Pulse of the Estuary THE PULSE OF THE ESTUARY 2009 Bay Sediments: Past a Tipping Point A Report of the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary SAND WAVES BOULDER FIELD SHAG ROCK ALCATRAZ ARCH ROCK SEDIMENT DISPOSAL SITE SAND WAVES This report should be cited as: San Francisco Estuary Institute, co VER IMAGE (SFEI). 2009. The Pulse of the Estuary: Monitoring and Shaded relief image of sediment deposits on the floor of Central Bay, generated Managing Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary. SFEI from bathymetric data. Courtesy of USGS. Additional information available at: Contribution 583. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. http://terraweb.wr.usgs.gov/projects/SFBaySonar/centralbay.html THE PULSE OF THE ESTUARY Monitoring and Managing Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary 2009 Bay Sediments: Past a Tipping Point A Report of the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary September • 2009 Contribution #583 2 | | | | | | | | INTRODUCTION | OVERVIEW OVERVIEW Sediment in San Francisco Bay: Past a Tipping Point The importance of water in an estuary is obvious. Less obvious, but equally important, especially in San Francisco Bay, is the sediment – the small particles of sand, clay, other minerals, and organic matter that lie in deep deposits on the bottom of the Bay and that are stirred up into the water by waves, tides, and freshwater inflows. Sediments are central in many ways to the ecology and manage- ment of the Bay. Sediment deposits on the bottom of the Bay provide habitat for a diverse array of species that account for much of the productivity of the ecosystem as a whole. Sediment particles suspended in Bay waters control light availability and photosynthesis, limiting the amount of food that can be produced to support fish, birds, and marine mammals. Suspended sediment particles also have a pivotal role as transporters of many pollutants J IAY DAV S of concern (such as mercury, PCBs, and many others that strongly San Francisco Estuary Institute associate with particles) into and throughout the Bay. Suspended [email protected] 3 | | | | | | | | sediment particles are crucial in wetland restora- Past a Tipping Point Intensive monitoring of concentrations of OVERVW tion, as they are a primary source of the substrate suspended sediment has also been a significant I that is needed for the establishment of wetland Given the central importance of sediment habitat component of the RMP since the Program began E plants and the animal species that depend on and sediment dynamics, the Regional Moni- in 1993. This work has been conducted by Dave them. On the other hand, suspended sediment toring Program for Water Quality in the San Schoellhamer and his colleagues at the U.S. Geo- particles also deposit in places where they inter- Francisco Estuary (RMP) invests substantial re- logical Survey. Maintaining this dataset over this fere with beneficial uses of the Bay – specifically, sources into monitoring and modeling sediment. 16 year period has enabled us to detect a sudden in channels where they impede navigation and Sediment transport into the Bay is measured in and fundamental change that occurred between must periodically be dredged. Approximately four monitoring and modeling studies of the loading 1998 and 1999 (page 56). It appears that the Bay million cubic yards of sediment are dredged from of mercury and other particle-associated pollut- passed a tipping point at that time due to the Bay channels and moved to other locations each ants from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers depletion of a pool of easily erodible sediment that year, with millions of dollars spent to plan and and small tributaries (page 50). The quality of had been slowly moving through the watershed conduct these activities. the surface sediments, which provide habitat for ever since the Gold Rush. In 1999 this pool seems most benthic (sediment-dwelling) species, is to have been exhausted, and suspended sediment The shallow depth of the Bay further magnifies the extensively monitored using a “triad” of chemical concentrations fell by 40%. importance of sediment in this ecosystem. At low analysis of a host of contaminants, evaluation of tide, about half of the Bay is less than ten feet deep. toxicity, and assessment of benthic populations. This shift to clearer waters is affecting the ecol- Much of this shallow area consists of mudflats – A major effort in the last few years has been ogy and management of the Bay in many ways. one of the Bay’s defining features. A good low tide made to measure contaminant concentrations Ecologically, the Bay shifted from a system where exposes vast mudflats that cover about a sixth of in cores of deeper sediments to evaluate the photosynthesis by phytoplankton was limited by the Bay’s total area, with the largest expanses in the potential for these buried deposits to erode and a lack of light penetration in the murky waters, to eastern and southern parts of the South Bay and prolong recovery of the Bay (page 76). A primary one where phytoplankton abundance has been the northern parts of San Pablo and Suisun Bays. focus of the RMP over the next several years will increasing (page 53) and represents a growing These mudflats are vital habitat for the hundreds of be development of a model that describes the concern. Water quality managers now must pay thousands of shorebirds that pass through the re- movement of sediment and sediment-associated closer attention to the potential for nutrient gion in spring and fall. The Bay’s shallow depth also contaminants, providing a tool that water quality pollution to cause the problems associated with increases the capacity for waves and water flows to managers can use to forecast recovery of the Bay excessive algal production that are common in resuspend sediment into the water column, where it at local and regional scales (page 75). many other estuaries, such as Chesapeake Bay. has such a large influence on water quality. THE PULSE OF THE ESTUARY South Bay mudflats. Photograph by Mami Odaya. | 2009 A California Clapper Rail in Arrowhead Marsh. Photograph by Meredith Williams. 4 | | | | | | | | OVERVW IE OVERVIEW continued A great deal of effort goes into managing sedi- There have been major shifts in the sediment regime Other Highlights of ment itself in San Francisco Bay. The Bay is a ma- of the Bay before (page 66), and this has been the this Edition of the Pulse jor international shipping hub, with an estimated largest human influence on the morphology of the 4,000 commercial ocean-going vessels carrying ecosystem. High suspended sediment concentra- An important shift in how contaminants are managed approximately $20 billion worth of cargo pass- tions resulting from hydraulic gold mining in the in the Bay is also underway. The "sediment quality ing through every year. Navigational channels Sierra Nevada led to deposition of over 300 million triad” mentioned above (chemistry, toxicity, abun- have been created, deepened, and maintained cubic yards of sediment in the Bay in the middle dance) is providing a foundation for application of by dredging to enable these and other vessels to and late 1800s. In the 1900s the sediment supply sediment quality objectives (SQOs) – a new tool that navigate safely into and out of ports, harbors, was largely cut off as reservoirs were constructed has been developed to better manage sediment con- and marinas without running aground. Most of in the Central Valley, and the Bay entered an era of tamination (page 16). California adopted SQOs in the four million cubic yards of sediment dredged net erosion from the Bay floor. Patterns of erosion 2008, becoming one of the first states to implement each year is disposed of in the Bay at aquatic and deposition in the Bay are likely to continue to such an approach. The SQO framework will provide disposal sites (page 52) or used to raise sediment change due to changes in sediment supply, sea level a useful context for addressing the widespread sedi- elevations in restoration of tidal wetlands. Many rise, and intentional or unintentional restoration of ment toxicity that has been consistently observed successful projects in the Bay Area have demon- tidal action to large areas in the Bay and Delta. since the RMP began in 1993 (page 47). strated the benefits of re-use of dredged sediment in wetland restoration (page 8). Lower concen- One concern related to erosion of Bay sediment As always, this Pulse also presents an overview of trations of suspended sediment will likely result deposits is that the relatively high concentrations in other noteworthy information that has been gener- in a mix of positive and negative impacts, includ- layers that formed in more contaminated eras could ated in the past year by the RMP and other programs. ing a reduced need for maintenance dredging and be time-bombs waiting to be uncovered, and could Year after year, the RMP continues to build high qual- increased capacity of the in-Bay aquatic disposal prolong recovery in spite of current efforts to reduce ity datasets on water quality parameters that are criti- sites, but a diminished supply of the sediment contaminant inputs. A new RMP study found that cal to the health of the Bay, and our understanding that is naturally delivered to restoration sites by concentrations of trace metals in these deeper sedi- incrementally advances. The fundamental shift ob- the tides. With a smaller natural supply of sedi- ment layers were lower than expected, suggesting served through sustained measurement of suspended ment, there will be an even greater demand for that this is less of a concern than previously thought sediment concentrations is a classic example of the re-using dredged sediment in restoration projects.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 10 the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail
    SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WATER TRAIL 2016 HIGHLIGHTS THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WATER TRAIL A growing network of launching and landing sites for human-powered boats and beachable sail craft (kayak, SUP, kiteboards, etc.) encouraging the exploration of the historic, scenic, cultural and environmental richness of the 450-square-mile San Francisco Bay estuary. Major funding is provided by the State Coastal Conservancy. 30 $596,900 14 TOTAL WATER TRAIL GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO DATE SITES DESIGNATED SITES DESIGNATED IN 2016 $490,400 $1,153,480 GRANT FUNDS AWARDED 2016 $’S LEVERAGED THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL A planned 500-mile shoreline path around the entire San Francisco Bay running through all nine Bay Area counties and 47 cities, connecting schools, neighborhoods, jobs, and parks to the shoreline and to each other. Major funding is provided by the State Coastal Conservancy. MILES CONNECTED BY NEW 2016 350 10 47 SEGMENTS MILES COMPLETED MILES CONSTRUCTED IN 2016 $18,788,326 144 GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO DATE TOTAL MILES PLANNED/ DESIGNED 64 $113,682,562 TOTAL MILES $’S LEVERAGED CONSTRUCTED TRAIL BAY 2016 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL HIGHLIGHTS 2.5 miles of new Bay Trail Bay Bridge East Span Pathway Completion of new trail along Silicon Valley Trail Loop Study adjacent to Sears Point Wetland connects to Yerba Buena Island Christie Avenue between Powell released in partnership with Ridge Restoration Area opens linking and Shellmound streets closes Trail and the City of San Jose to 2.5 miles of existing shoreline a small but significant gap to demonstrate GHG emissions Bay Trail at Sonoma Baylands in Emeryville reductions along the South Bay Trails network Bay Trail Design Guidelines Google completes resurfacing of First 2016 episode of Open Road Explore the Coast grant awarded and Toolkit released four miles of Bay Trail linking with Doug McConnell features for five additional Bay Trail smart Sunnyvale and Mountain View.
    [Show full text]
  • Grants and Partnerships to Restore Wildlife Habitat (As of August 2017)
    Project Status D3 - Grants and Partnerships to Restore Wildlife Habitat (As of August 2017) Grantee/Community Amount Project Name+E3:J7J3E3:J20 Description of Project Year & Type Status Measurable Outcomes Partner Awarded Resource Conservation Improve in-stream habitat in multiple locations along a 3.7 mile reach 1 District of Santa Cruz Uvas Creek Steelhead Spawning Habitat $446,755 FY 14 Grant Open below Uvas Dam. County • 3 years of vegetation survey data showing a decrease in invasive plant population, including Italian thistle. • Close to 12,000 native plants installed covering more than 1 acre of the meadow. Grassroots Ecology A collaborative volunteer-based project to remove invasive plants and McClellan Ranch Preserve Meadow • Increased habitat value and diversity as result of planting over 30 different types of (Formerly Acterra establish “island” of native plants within a riparian meadow adjacent to $164,200 FY 14 Grant Complete June 30, 2017 Enhancement Project native plants. This has led to increased native wildlife (more native insects, birds, and Stewardship) Stevens Creek. pollinators have been seen). • More than 3,500 community members engaged through 352 volunteer events; contributing 7,427 volunteer hours. To restore the hydrologic function and habitat value to an 8.5 acre seasonal wet meadow and riparian complex by restoring more than 800 Santa Clara County Open Coyote Valley Open Preserve South Valley yards of altered drainages, reseeding approximately 4.5 acres with a $256,576 FY 14 Grant Complete June 30, 2017 Final report awaited Space Authority Meadow Restoration Project climate‐smart native plant palette, and providing an extension of connected lowland California Tiger Salamander habitat into Coyote Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Oral History Off Ice University of California the Bancroft Library Berkeley, California
    Regional Oral History Off ice University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California California Land-Use Planning Series SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION, 1961-1986 with an Introduction by Harold Gilliam and an Afterword by Me1 Scott Interviews with Barry Bunshoft Esther Gulick Catherine Kerr Sylvia McLaughlin Interviews conducted by Malca Chall 1985 and 1986 Copyright @ 1987 by The Regents of the University of California This manuscript is made available for research purposes. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the Univer- sity of California at Berkeley. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, and should include identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: To cite the volume: Save San Francisco Bay Association, 1961-1986, an oral history conducted in 1985 and 1986 by Malca Chall, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft ~ibrar~, University bf calif ornia, Berkeley, 1987. To cite individual interview: Barry Bunshoft, "Save San Francisco Bay Association and the Courts," an oral history conducted in 1986 by Malca.Chal1, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1987. Copy No. DEDICATION THE SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION DEDICATES THIS ORAL HISTORY TO THE MEMORY OF DOROTHY
    [Show full text]
  • Revegetation Program Installation Report and 201-201 Revegetation Plan
    SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT Revegetation Program Installation Report and 201-201 Revegetation Plan Create Report templates San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program DRAFT Year 4 (2014‐2015) Installation Report and Year 5 (2015‐2016) Revegetation Plan Prepared by Jeanne Hammond Olofson Environmental, Inc. 1830 Embarcadero Cove, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94606 For the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 January 26, 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Jeanne Hammond, the Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program Manager and incorporates the hard work done by other OEI biologists including Whitney Thornton, Jeffrey Lewis, Stephanie Chen, Nathan Deakers, Kevin Eng, Anastasia Ennis, Simon Gunner, Nina Hill, Penluck Laulikitnont, Jennifer McBroom, Monica Oey, Tobias Rohmer, Ilana Stein, Tripp McCandlish, as well as contributions from Ingrid Hogle and Drew Kerr. We would also like to thank our partners and contractors for all their hard work contracting, growing and planting including the California Wildlife Foundation, The Watershed Nursery, Shelterbelt, Inc., Hanford ARC, and Aquatic Environ‐ ments. This program would not be possible without the participation of our partner/landowners in‐ cluding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, East Bay Regional Park District, City of San Leandro, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, City of Alameda, City of Palo Alto, County of San Mateo Watershed Protection Services, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, and the Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This report was prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project with support and funding from the following contributors: California Coastal Conservancy California Wildlife Conservation Board (MOU #99‐054‐01 and subsequent) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Estuary
    1 AA FrameworkFramework forfor CollaborativeCollaborative ActionAction onon WetlandsWetlands US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE etlands in the San Francisco Bay Area are range of interests—including resource and regulato- Wamong the most important coastal wintering ry agencies, environmental organizations, business, and migratory stopover areas for millions of water- and agriculture—convened the San Francisco Bay fowl and shorebirds traveling along the Pacific Fly- Joint Venture (SFBJV) in June of 1995. In September way, which stretches from Alaska to South America. 1996, 20 parties representing this diverse wetlands These wetlands also provide economic benefits, constituency signed a working agreement that iden- offer a range of recreational opportunities, and con- tified the goals and objectives of the SFBJV, and the tribute to a higher quality of life for residents in the responsibilities of its board and working commit- densely populated San Francisco Bay Area. They are tees. The agreement also stated that the Implemen- essential aspects of the Bay region’s unique charac- tation Strategy would be developed to guide its par- ter and, along with the creeks that flow into the Bay, ties toward the long-term vision of the restored Bay help to define the vibrant and distinctive identities Estuary. The signatory partners recognized and of communities around the Bay. However, despite endorsed the goals of the North American Waterfowl their value, destruction of these precious natural Management Plan. However, they enlarged the goals assets continues. Today’s wetlands are only a rem- and objectives of the Plan to include benefits not nant, perhaps 20 percent of the vast wetlands seen only for waterfowl, but also for the other wildlife by the first European settlers.
    [Show full text]
  • Be Part of the Sollution to Creek Pollution. Visit Or Call (408) 630-2739 PRESENTED BY: Creek Connections Action Group DONORS
    1 San Francisco Bay Alviso Milpitas olunteers are encouraged to wear CREEK ty 2 STEVENS si r CR e iv Palo SAN FRANCISQUITO long pants, sturdy shoes, gloves n E 13 U T N Alto 3 N E V A P l N Mountain View i m A e d a M G R U m E A and sunscreen and bring their own C P 7 D O s o MATADERO CREEK A Y era n L O T av t Car U E al Shoreline i L‘Avenida bb C ean P K E EE R a C d C SA l R S pick-up sticks. All youth under 18 need i E R RY I V BER h t E E r R a E o F 6 K o t M s K o F EE t g CR h i IA i n r C supervision and transportation to get l s N l e 5 t E Ce T R t n 9 S I t tra 10 t N e l E ADOBE CREEK P 22 o Great America Great C M a to cleanup sites. p i to Central l e Exp Ke Mc W e h s c s i r t a n e e e k m r El C w c a o 15 4 o o m w in T R B o a K L n in SI a Santa Clara g um LV S Al ER C Sunnyvale R 12 16 E E K 11 ry Homestead 17 Sto S y T a l H n e i 18 O F K M e Stevens Creek li 19 P p S e O O y yll N N ll I u uT l C U T l i R Q h A t R 23 26 C S o Cupertino 33 20 A S o ga O o M T F t Hamilton A a O a G rba z r Ye B T u 14 S e 8 a n n d n O a R S L a 24 A N i A 32 e S d CLEANUP 34 i D r M S SI e L K e V o n E E R E Campbell C n t M R R 31 e E E C t K e r STEVENS CREEK LOCATIONS r S Campbell e y RESERVOIR A Z W I m San L e D v K A CA A E o S E T r TE R e V C B c ly ENS el A s Jose H PALO ALTO L C A a B C a HELLYER 28 m y 30 xp w 1 San Francisquito Creek d Capitol E PARK o r e t e n Saratoga Saratoga i t Sign up online today! u s e Q h 21 C YO c O T 2 Matadero Creek E n i C W R E ARATOGA CR E S 29 K 3 Adobe Creek VASONA RESERVOIR
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule
    2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 7/26/21 Environmental Review Site Locations (map) Treatment Methods Where: How: Herbicide Use: of Imazapyr Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering 01a Channel Mouth X Lower Channel (not including 01b X mouth) 01c Upper Channel X Alameda Flood 4 years with no 1 Upper Channel - Union City Blvd to Control Channel 01d invasive Spartina I-880 (2017-2020) 01e Strip Marsh No. of Channel Mouth X No Invasive 01f Pond 3-AFCC Spartina 2020 02a.1a Belmont Slough Mouth X X X 02a.1b Belmont Slough Mouth South X X X Upper Belmont Slough and 02a.2 X X X Redwood Shores 02a.3 Bird Island X 02a.4 Redwood Shores Mitigation Bank X 02b.1 Corkscrew Slough X X Steinberger Slough South, 02b.2 X X Redwood Creek Northwest 02c.1a B2 North Quadrant West 8/14 X X 02c.1b B2 North Quadrant East 8/24 X X 02c.2 B2 North Quadrant South 8/12-8/13 X X 02d.1a B2 South Quadrant West X 02d.1b B2 South Quadrant East X 02d.2 B2 South Quadrant (2) X 2 Bair/Greco Islands 02d.3 B2 South Quadrant (3) X 02e Westpoint Slough NW X X 02f Greco Island North X X 02g Westpoint Slough SW and East X X 02h Greco Island South X X 02i Ravenswood Slough & Mouth X Ravenswood Open Space Preserve 02j.1 X (north Hwy 84) * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season.
    [Show full text]
  • Marsh Trail H
    HIGH ST. HIGH Martin Luther King Jr. F E R N TIDEWATER S TIDEWATER Regional Shoreline I D BOATING LAUNCH KAYAK/CANOE E CENTER LINCOLN PARK (City of Alameda) Photo: Michael Short Michael Photo: B 4675 Tidewater Ave., L Location . Oakland Start/ .16 Hike ST. LESSER End 56 parking spaces STAGING TIDEWATER GPS 37.761486,-122.223014 ENTRANCE PARK OAKPORT ST. OAKPORT EASY HIKE (888-327-2757), option 3, AV. Phone extension 4541 .58 BAY T RAIL Miles 3.5-Mile Round Trip LUTHER KING JR. MARTIN Rev. 9/19 0 .16 Elevation .10 26 ft. East Creek Slough O N M A Gain D Bus Stop Marsh Boat Launch Reservable Picnic Picnic Phone Wheelchair Access Restroom Water Information Parking Paved Road Mileage Between Points San Francisco Bay Trail Multiuse Paved Trail M A R 1/8 S Trails Marsh Trail H 8 a.m. to Sunset; T Hours/ R A I Curfew L varies seasonally 1/4 Mi. North .84 Fees None 50 parking spots GATE PEPPERMINT FIELDS OAKPORT Website ebparks.org/parks/martinlking W Boating Center as well as the Garretson Point Staging I Bay Leandro San L D L I Pond Doolittle F Area turn around point. INSTALLATION ART AVE. ZHONE WAY/66TH E Park Features: Decades of restoration projects at S A N MLK Jr. Regional Shoreline have brought this precious Trail Directions: Look for the paved Bay Trail to C T U A marshland’s ecosystem back to life. The restoration R the left of the Tidewater Boating Center parking lot. Y W D A I L 66th AV.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quail Volume 66, Number 4 DECEMBER 2020–JANUARY 2021
    View this email in your browser The Quail Volume 66, Number 4 DECEMBER 2020–JANUARY 2021 Next Monthly Program Meeting: Thursday, December 3 Please mark your calendar for our next virtual monthly program meeting! See BELOW for webinar access info. 7:00 PM Welcome and Introductions 7:05 PM Birding Info: Julie Woodruff will provide an update on her Northern Saw-whet Owl banding project 7:25 PM Board Announcements 7:35 PM Main Program: Tricolored Blackbirds with Xerónimo Castañeda 8:30 PM Adjourn Main Program: Tricolored Blackbirds Xerónimo Castañeda, Tricolored Blackbird Conservation Project Manager Xerónimo Castañeda, Conser vation Project Manager with Audubon California, will discuss the protection of at-risk Tri colored Blackbird colonies, the development of multi-benefit groundwater recharge projects in target regions to benefit birds and communities, and on-farm habitat enhancement using cover crops and through riparian restoration. A native of California he has lived and worked from Monterey to Arcata, ventured to the east coast and eventually found his way back to Sacramento. His work with Audubon focuses on habitat restoration and enhancement through multi- benefit management of Central Valley wetlands, agricultural operations, and groundwater recharge projects to benefit birds and people. Away from work, Xerónimo spends time backpacking, riding bikes, cooking, and of course, birding. Photo: Xerónimo Castañeda Birding Info: Northern Saw-whet Owl Banding Project Julie Woodruff, Biologist, Northern Saw-whet Owl Project and Banding Program Do you love Northern Saw-whet Owls? Julie Woodruff will provide an update on her Northern Saw-whet Owl banding project, a local program supported by Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Access and Wildlife Compatibility
    Public Access and Wildlife Compatibility March 2001 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 California Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Information: (415) 352-3600 Fax: (415) 352-3606 Web site: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov CONTENTS FOREWORD..............................................................................................................................................i PROJECT CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................1 ADOPTED PUBLIC ACCESS FINDINGS AND POLICIES................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1. BCDC POLICY HISTORY: BALANCING PUBLIC ACCESS AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION................................................................................... 11 Bay Plan Background Reports................................................................................11 Bay Plan Policies......................................................................................................12 Suisun Marsh Protection Plan.................................................................................13 Public Access Supplement......................................................................................14 Assembly Bill No. 954 (Aroner) ..................................................................... 14 Summary ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]