DOCSLIB.ORG

Suisun Marsh Habitat Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Suisun Marsh Habitat Plan Numerical Modeling in Support of Suisun Marsh PEIR/EIS September 2009 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.60 Zone 1 0.90 Base 0.90 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.3 5.31 Point 1 3.6 3.6 Point 2 1.02 3.9 Point 2 Point 1 3.9 3.88 4.2 4.2 4.5 1.13 4.5 4.8 4.8 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.4 5.7 5.7 6.0 6.0 Velocity Velocity (ft/s) (ft/s) Figure 5-59 Color contour plots of velocity for Base case and Zone 1 near Morrow Island on July 12, 2002 14:00. Points analyzed: channel (Point 1) and bank (Point 2). 117 Numerical Modeling in Support of Suisun Marsh PEIR/EIS September 2009 1-D: Base Comparison of Velocity Values at Morrow Island Point #1: Base vs. Set 1 2 Set 1 MI Point 1 Base MI Point 1 Set 1 2-D: 1 ) Set 2 -1 0 Velocitysec (ft -1 -2 07/01/02 07/04/02 07/07/02 07/10/02 07/13/02 07/16/02 07/19/02 07/22/02 07/25/02 07/28/02 07/31/02 Comparison of Velocity Values at Morrow Island Point #1: Base vs. Set 2 5 MI Point 1 Base 4 MI Point 1 Set 2 3 2 ) -1 1 0 -1 Velocity (ft sec -2 -3 -4 -5 07/01/02 07/04/02 07/07/02 07/10/02 07/13/02 07/16/02 07/19/02 07/22/02 07/25/02 07/28/02 07/31/02 MorrowVelocitySMjuly2002.m 10-Jan-2008 MGuerin Figure 5-60 Morrow Island velocity at Point 1 for Sets 1 and 2 in comparison with the Base case. 118 Numerical Modeling in Support of Suisun Marsh PEIR/EIS September 2009 Velocity Distribution Near Morrow Island Point 1: July 2002 BASE Pt. 1 SET1 Pt. 1 SET Pt. 1 ZONE1 Pt. 1 ZONE4 Pt. 1 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 ft/sec ‐1.0 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.98 ‐2.0 ‐3.0 ‐4.0 ‐5.0 Exceedence Velocity Distribution Near Morrow Island Point 2: July 2002 BASE PT. 2 SET1 PT. 2 SET2 PT. 2 ZONE1 PT. 2 ZONE4 PT. 2 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 ‐1.0 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.98 ft/sec ‐2.0 ‐3.0 ‐4.0 ‐5.0 ‐6.0 Exceedence Figure 5-61 Velocity distributions for points analyzed near Morrow Island: point 1 (channel) and point 2 (bank). 119 Numerical Modeling in Support of Suisun Marsh PEIR/EIS September 2009 0.00 0.00 0.30 Base 0.30 Zone 4 0.60 0.60 0.90 0.90 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 Pt 1 2.1 2.1 4.09 2.4 3.81 2.4 2.7 2.7 Pt 2 3.0 3.0 Pt 1 3.3 4.83 3.3 1.29 3.6 3.6 1.28 Pt 3 3.9 3.9 4.2 4.2 Pt 2 = Pt 3 4.5 4.5 4.8 4.8 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.4 5.7 5.7 6.0 6.0 Velocity Velocity (ft/s) (ft/s) Figure 5-62 Color contour plots of velocity for Base case and Zone 4 near Meins Landing on July 17, 2002 1915. Points analyzed: points 1 and 3 (bank) and point 2 (mid-channel). 120 Numerical Modeling in Support of Suisun Marsh PEIR/EIS September 2009 1-D: Comparison of Velocity Values in Zone 4 Channels at Point #3: Base vs. Set 1 Base 5 Zone 4 Point 3 Base 4 2-D: Zone 4 Point 3: Set 1 Set1 3 Zone 4 ) 2 -1 1 0 -1 Velocity sec (ft -2 -3 -4 -5 07/01/02 07/04/02 07/07/02 07/10/02 07/13/02 07/16/02 07/19/02 07/22/02 07/25/02 07/28/02 07/31/02 Comparison of Velocity Values in Zone 4 Channels at Point #3: Base vs. Zone 4 5 Zone 4 Point 3: Base 4 Zone 4 Point 3: Zone4 3 ) 2 -1 1 0 -1 Velocity sec (ft -2 -3 -4 -5 07/01/02 07/04/02 07/07/02 07/10/02 07/13/02 07/16/02 07/19/02 07/22/02 07/25/02 07/28/02 07/31/02 compZ4velocitySMjuly2002.m 08-Jan-2008 MGuerin Figure 5-63 Meins Landing velocity at Point 2 for Set 1 and Zone 4 in comparison with the Base case. 1-D: Base Comparison of Velocity Values in Zone 4 Channels at Point #3: Base vs. Set 2 3 Set 2 Zone 4 Point 3: Base Zone 4 Point 3: Set 2 Zone 1 2 ) 1 -1 0 -1 Velocity (ft sec -2 -3 07/01/02 07/04/02 07/07/02 07/10/02 07/13/02 07/16/02 07/19/02 07/22/02 07/25/02 07/28/02 07/31/02 Comparison of Velocity Values in Zone 4 Channels at Point #3: Base vs. Zone 1 3 Zone 4 Point 3: Base Zone 4 Point 3: Zone 1 2 ) -1 1 0 -1 Velocity (ft sec (ft Velocity -2 -3 07/01/02 07/04/02 07/07/02 07/10/02 07/13/02 07/16/02 07/19/02 07/22/02 07/25/02 07/28/02 07/31/02 compZ4velocitySMjuly2002.m 08-Jan-2008 MGuerin Figure 5-64 Meins Landing velocity at Point 2 for Set 2 and Zone 1 in comparison with the Base case. 121 Numerical Modeling in Support of Suisun Marsh PEIR/EIS September 2009 Meins Landing Point 3 ‐ Velocity Distribution Base Pt. 3 Set 1 Pt. 3 Zone 4 Pt. 3 Set 2 Pt. 3 Zone1 Pt. 3 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.44 0.47 0.49 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.59 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.98 ft/sec ‐1.0 ‐2.0 ‐3.0 ‐4.0 Exceedence ‐5.0 Figure 5-65 Velocity distributions for Point 3 (bank) analyzed near Meins Landing. Exceedence 122 Numerical Modeling in Support of Suisun Marsh PEIR/EIS September 2009 0.00 0.50 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 7.60 1 6.5 7.0 7.5 2 8.0 6.60 8.5 6.51 9.0 9.5 3 10.0 Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Distribution At Crooss Slough Point 1: July 2002 Velocity Distribution Near Cross Slough Points Set 2: July 2002 BASE SET1 SET2 ZONE1 ZONE4 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 8.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.98 0.0 ‐2.0 ft/sec ft/sec 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.98 ‐2.0 ‐4.0 ‐4.0 ‐6.0 ‐6.0 ‐8.0 ‐8.0 ‐10.0 Exceedence Exceedence Figure 5-66 (Above) Color contour plot of Set 2 velocity near Cross Slough on July 19, 2002 23:15. (Below) Velocity distributions in Cross Slough. Points analyzed: points 1 and 2 mid-channel. 123 Numerical Modeling in Support of Suisun Marsh PEIR/EIS September 2009 1-D: Base Comparison of Velocity Values at Cross Slough Point #1: Base vs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • A Century of Delta Salt Water Barriers
    A Century of Salt Water Barriers in the Delta By Tim Stroshane Policy Analyst Restore the Delta June 5, 2015 edition Since the late 19th century, California’s basic plan for water resource development has been to export water from the Sacramento River and the Delta to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California. Unfortunately, this basic plan ignores the reality that the Delta is the very definition of an estuary: it is where fresh water from the Central Valley’s rivers meets salt water from tidal flow to the Delta from San Francisco Bay. Productive ecosystems have thrived in the Delta for millenia prior to California statehood. But for nearly a century now, engineers and others have frequently referred to the Delta as posing a “salt menace,” a “salinity problem” with just two solutions: either maintain a predetermined stream flow from the Delta to Suisun Bay to hydraulically wall out the tide, or use physical barriers to separate saline from fresh water into the Delta. While readily admitting that the “salt menace” results from reduced inflows from the Delta’s major tributary rivers, the state of California uses salt water barriers as a technological fix to address the symptoms of the salinity problem, rather than the root causes. Given complex Delta geography, these two main solutions led to many proposals to dam up parts of San Francisco Bay, Carquinez Strait, or the waterway between Chipps Island in eastern Suisun Bay and the City of Antioch, or to use large amounts of water—referred to as “carriage water”— to hold the tide literally at bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Subsidence Reversal for Tidal Reconnection
    PERFORMANCE MEASURE 4.12: SUBSIDENCE REVERSAL FOR TIDAL RECONNECTION Performance Measure 4.12: Subsidence Reversal for Tidal Reconnection Performance Measure (PM) Component Attributes Type: Output Performance Measure Description 1 Subsidence reversal 0F activities are located at shallow subtidal elevations to prevent net loss of future opportunities to restore tidal wetlands in the Delta and Suisun Marsh. Expectations Preventing long-term net loss of land at intertidal elevations in the Delta and Suisun Marsh from impacts of sea level rise and land subsidence. Metric 1. Acres of Delta and Suisun Marsh land with subsidence reversal activity located on islands with large areas at shallow subtidal elevations. This metric will be reported annually. 2. Average elevation accretion at each project site presented in centimeters per year. This metric will be reported every five years. Baseline 1. In 2019, zero acres of subsidence reversal on islands with large areas at shallow subtidal elevations. 2. Short-term elevation accretion in the Delta at 4 centimeters per year. 1 Subsidence reversal is a process that halts soil oxidation and accumulates new soil material in order to increase land elevations. Examples of subsidence reversal activities are rice cultivation, managed wetlands, and tidal marsh restoration. DELTA PLAN, AMENDED – PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOVEMBER 2019 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURE 4.12: SUBSIDENCE REVERSAL FOR TIDAL RECONNECTION Target 1. By 2030, 3,500 acres in the Delta and 3,000 acres in Suisun Marsh with subsidence reversal activities on islands, with at least 50 percent of the area or with at least 1,235 acres at shallow subtidal elevations. 2. An average elevation accretion of subsidence reversal is at least 4 centimeters per year up to 2050.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrodynamic Measurements in Suisun Bay, California, 1992-93
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey ft- HYDRODYNAMIC MEASUREMENTS IN SUISUN BAY, CALIFORNIA, 1992-93 Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4039 Prepared in cooperation with the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION uses science for a changing world Hydrodynamic Measurements in Suisun Bay, California, 1992-93 By Jeffrey W. Gartner and Jon R. Burau U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4039 Prepared in cooperation with the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION O CO Sacramento, California 1999 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Placer Hall, Suite 2012 Box 25286 6000 J Street Federal Center Sacramento, CA 95819-6129 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract........................................................................................................................._^ 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]