DOCSLIB.ORG

Clapper Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2012 CLAPPER RAIL SURVEYS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT California Clapper Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2012 Prepared by: Jen McBroom Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2612‐A 8th Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Contact: [email protected] For the State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 December 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was designed and prepared under the direction of Jen McBroom, the Spartina Project Clapper Rail Monitoring Manager, with considerable hard work by Jen and other OEI biologists and staff, including Jeanne Hammond, Jeffrey Lewis, Jude Stalker, Stephanie Chen, Tobias Rohmer, Tripp McCandlish, and Whitney Thornton. Many thanks to Ingrid Hogle, who compiled and analyzed all Spartina data presented here. We are especially grateful for the support of our partners who shared clapper rail survey data that they collected over the past six years: PRBO Conservation Science, USFWS, East Bay Regional Park District, and Avocet Research and Associates. Cover photo ©Allen Hirsch, Oakland, California. http://allenh.zenfolio.com/. A California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) shakes off water after a swim at Arrowhead Marsh, Oakland, California. The ruffled orange breast feathers indicate that this bird carries a “backpack harness transmitter” secured by two straps encircling the bird’s breast. This bird is one of several dozen birds included in a recent study conducted by biologists at U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center (http://www.werc.usgs.gov/Project.aspx?ProjectID=152). 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) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Federal Grant #NA09NMF4630318) United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region (Contract #F12PX00504) Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Methods .................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Field Methods ...................................................................................................................... 13 Protocol A: Passive Call Count Survey ............................................................................... 13 Protocol C: Active Call Count Survey .................................................................................. 14 Protocol B: Stationary Call Count Survey ........................................................................... 14 Protocol F: Habitat Assessment Survey ............................................................................. 14 National Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol (Pilot Study) ................................................... 14 3.2 Data Management ............................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Data Interpretation.............................................................................................................. 16 4. 2012 Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Bay Bridge North Region ..................................................................................................... 18 4.2 San Leandro Bay Region ...................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Hayward Region................................................................................................................... 24 4.4 Union City Region ................................................................................................................ 27 4.5 Dumbarton South – Newark, Alviso, & Mountain View Regions ........................................ 30 4.6 San Mateo Region ............................................................................................................... 33 4.7 San Francisco Peninsula Region ........................................................................................... 36 4.8 Marin Region ....................................................................................................................... 39 4.9 San Pablo Bay – Vallejo and Petaluma Regions ................................................................... 42 4.10 Pilot Study on National Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol ................................................. 44 5. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 45 6. Permits ....................................................................................................................................... 47 7. References ................................................................................................................................. 49 Appendix 1: Standard Survey Protocols for California Clapper Rails in the San Francisco Estuary ....................................................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix 2: National Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol (Pilot Project) ......................................... 63 Appendix 3: 2012 Survey Station Coordinates .............................................................................. 81 Appendix 4: Database Design ........................................................................................................ 95 Appendix 5: Clapper Rail Survey Forms ....................................................................................... 101 Appendix 6: 2012 Clapper Rail Survey Results ............................................................................ 107 Invasive Spartina Project i 2012 Clapper Rail Monitoring Report Table of Figures Figure 1. Map of regional boundaries ............................................................................................. 5 Figure 2. Map of clapper rail presence and absence in the Bay Bridge North Region .................. 20 Figure 3. Image of Grindelia stricta plantings at Arrowhead Marsh ............................................. 21 Figure 4. Map of clapper rail presence and absence in the San Leandro Bay Region. .................. 23 Figure 5. Image of the Hayward shoreline looking north from the San Mateo Bridge ................. 24 Figure 6. Map of clapper rail presence and absence in the Hayward Region. .............................. 26 Figure 7. An aerial image of the Eden Landing complex ............................................................... 27 Figure 8. Map of lclapper rai presence and absence in the Union City Region ............................ 29 Figure 9. Image of Calaveras Marsh from above ........................................................................... 30 Figure 10. Map of clapper rail presence and absence in the Dumbarton Bridge South Region ... 32 Figure 11. Map of clapper rail presence and absence in the San Mateo Region .......................... 35 Figure 12. Photo series documenting change in habitat over time at Colma Creek ..................... 36 Figure 13. Map of clapper rail presence and absence in the San Francisco Peninsula Region ..... 38 Figure 14. Map of clapper rail presence and absence in the Marin Region .................................. 41 Figure 15. Photo overlooking the large shoreline of Mare Island’s San Pablo Bay NWR .............. 42 Figure 16. Map showing clapper rail presence and absence in Vallejo and Petaluma Region ..... 43 Figure 17. Comparison of the detection frequency between two survey methods ..................... 44 Table of Tables Table 1. Summary table of site information grouped by region ................................................... 4 Table 2. Clapper rail detection types. ............................................................................................ 16 Table 3. Clapper rail and Spartina summary results from 2008‐2012 at all regions ..................... 17 Table 4. Clapper rail and Spartina results from 2008‐2012 at Bay Bridge North Region. ............. 19 Table 5. Clapper rail and Spartina results from 2008‐2011 in the San Leandro Bay Region. ....... 22 Table 6. Clapper rail and Spartina results from 2008 – 2012 in the Hayward Region. ................. 25 Table 7. Clapper Rail and Spartina results from 2008 – 2011 in the Union City Region. .............. 28 Table 8. Clapper rail and Spartina results from 2008 – 2012 south of the Dumbarton Bridge. ... 31 Table 9. Clapper rail and Spartina results from 2008‐2012 in the San Mateo Region .................. 34 Table 10. Clapper rail and Spartina results from 2008‐2012 in San Francisco Peninsula Region . 37 Table 11. Clapper rail and Spartina results from 2008‐2012 in the Marin Region........................ 40 Table 12. Clapper rail and Spartina results at two sites in San Pablo Bay. ................................... 42
Recommended publications
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    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.
  • Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond

    Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond

    BIRDING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Site Guides to 72 of the Best Birding Spots by Jean Richmond Written for Mt. Diablo Audubon Society 1985 Dedicated to my husband, Rich Cover drawing by Harry Adamson Sketches by Marv Reif Graphics by dk graphics © 1985, 2008 Mt. Diablo Audubon Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means without prior permission of MDAS. P.O. Box 53 Walnut Creek, California 94596 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . How To Use This Guide .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Birding Etiquette .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Terminology. Park Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 One Last Word. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 Map Symbols Used. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Acknowledgements .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Map With Numerical Index To Guides .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 The Guides. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 Where The Birds Are. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 158 Recommended References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 Index Of Birding Locations. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 166 5 6 Birding Northern California This book is a guide to many birding areas in northern California, primarily within 100 miles of the San Francisco Bay Area and easily birded on a one-day outing. Also included are several favorite spots which local birders
  • The San Mateo County Harbor District

    The San Mateo County Harbor District

    What is the Price of Dysfunction? The San Mateo County Harbor District Summary | Background | Methodology | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations | Requests for Responses | Attachments | Responses SUMMARY There is no way to sugar coat the issue. The commission governing the San Mateo County (County) Harbor District (Harbor District or District) is in disarray. It operates the District at significant yearly losses. Its commission meetings sometimes require police presence. YouTube videos mock the commissioners. Tenants’ rent checks are lost. Public comments about the commissioners are scathing. Financial reporting is anything but transparent. There are accusations of records destruction and excess benefits paid to commissioners. Lawsuits charging harassment fly between a commissioner and the District’s general manager. Video recording of commission meetings is abruptly suspended, and then reinstated. One commissioner loudly complains about the seating arrangement at meetings. Press reports frequently document the dysfunction. Social media is rife with criticism. A reporter for a daily newspaper claims that commissioners don’t “want to fix the problems, they just want to be right.” Meanwhile the property taxpayers of San Mateo County fund the District to the tune of $5,000,000 annually.1 The 2013-2014 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) received numerous complaints from the public about the District, including how the District awards leases, the alleged overcharging of lessees, the election process of commissioners, and a lack of transparency in the District’s financial reporting. The District’s office is overwhelmed by public records requests. The public’s disenchantment with the District has been reported on and documented as far back as 1963.
  • 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
  • Flow Equalization & Resource Recovery Facility Levee

    Flow Equalization & Resource Recovery Facility Levee

    Flow Equalization & Resource Recovery Facility Levee Improvements & Bayfront Recycled Water Facility Project DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH#2020050414 DECEMBER 2020 West Bay Sanitary District 500 Laurel Street | Menlo Park, CA 94025 This page intentionally left blank FERRF Levee Improvements and Bayfront RWF West Bay Sanitary District Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2020 Table of Contents i FERRF LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS AND BAYFRONT RECYCLED WATER FACILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME I - EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS EIR SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 1 S.1 Environmental Procedures .......................................................................................... 1 S.2 Type of EIR................................................................................................................. 2 S.3 Summary of Proposed Project .................................................................................... 2 S.4 Uses of this EIR .......................................................................................................... 3 S.5 Public Outreach ........................................................................................................... 4 S.6 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 7 S.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 23 Chapter 1 Introduction.............................................................................................................
  • Westpoint Regatta Sailing Instructions

    Westpoint Regatta Sailing Instructions

    WESTPOINT REGATTA June 22 2019 SAILING INSTRUCTIONS 1. RULES: 1.1 This regatta will be governed by the rules as defined by The Racing Rules of Sailing. *The J 105 Class will be sailing under the J 105 Fleet #1 class rules. 1.2 RRS 40 is changed as follows: All competitors are required to wear life jackets that are USCG or ISO approved. Belt Packs are not allowed. The “Y” flag will not be displayed. 1.3 RRS 52 is changed as follows: autopilots are permitted in the short-handed division (Single and Doublehanded). 1.4 Non Spinnaker Division yachts may fly only one headsail at a time from the headstay regardless of the point of sail. Non-Spinnaker Division yachts with headfoils or double forestays shall drop their in-use jib to the deck prior to raising a new one. 2. NOTICES TO COMPETITORS: Notices to competitors and changes to the sailing instructions will be posted on the YRA web site http://www.yra.org and the Westpoint Regatta Notice Board found on Jibeset.net: https://www.jibeset.net/YRA000.php?RG=T003423497 3. CHANGES TO THE SAILING INSTRUCTIONS: Any change to the Sailing Instructions will be posted before 1000 on Friday, June 21st. 4. CLASS FLAGS: 4.1 See attachment 1 for Division/Class Flags (Attachment 1 will be posted on the YRA website and on Jibeset.net on Friday, June 21st) 4.2 Class Flags are NOT required to be flown for the Westpoint Regatta. 5. THE COURSE AND MARKS: 5.1 Round marks as indicated: START MARK MARK FINISH DISTANCE YRA 10 YRA 17 - P G “11” B - P SeqYC Temporary Mark 28.7 nm 6.
  • Dredgedmaterialmanage Mentoffice

    Dredgedmaterialmanage Mentoffice

    D R E D G E D M A T E R I A L M A N A G E M E N T O F F I C E See the DMMO Website at: http://www.dmmosfbay.org/site/alias_dmmo/71024/meeting_area_document_and_data_submittal.aspx or the Corps' web page at: http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/DredgingWorkPermits.aspx AGENDA Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) Meeting San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 10600 San Francisco, CA 94102 Wednesday Apr 17, 2019 11:00 am, BCDC SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MEETINGS: Wednesday May 1, 2019 11:00 am, BCDC Wednesday May 15, 2019 11:00 am, BCDC Wednesday May 29, 2019 11:00 am, BCDC Wednesday June 12, 2019 11:00 am, BCDC Wednesday June 26, 2019 11:00 am, BCDC A. PROJECTS 1. Chevron Long Wharf: Tier I (Gravenmier) (O’Leary) 11am 2. Westpoint Harbor: Tier I (Gnusti) (O’Leary) 11:30am 3. St. Francis Yacht Club: SAR (Fulmer) (Vargas) 12pm 4. Marin Lagoon Homeowners Association: SAP (Kalnins) 1:30pm 5. USACE Oakland Harbor: Tier I (Keller, Eng) 2pm B. PRESENTATIONS, INFORMATION, OTHER BUSINESS U.S. Environmental Protection San Francisco Bay Conservation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco Bay Regional California Agency, Region IX, WTR-8 and Development Commission San Francisco District Water Quality Control Board State Lands Commission 75 Hawthorne Street 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 450 Golden Gate, 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South San Francisco, CA 94105-3919 Suite 10600 4th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-1413 Sacramento, CA 95835-8202 San Francisco, CA 94102-7019 San Francisco, CA 94102 If you need a reasonable accommodation, please contact Phillip Kum at 415-947-3566.
  • Revegetation Program Installation Report and 201-201 Revegetation Plan

    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.
  • Oyster Point Marina Financial Analysis (Dornbusch January 2018)

    Oyster Point Marina Financial Analysis (Dornbusch January 2018)

    Oyster Point Marina Financial Analysis San Mateo County Harbor District January 2018 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 2 A. STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................... 2 B. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ................................................. 3 II. SUMMARY OF OPM HISTORICAL DATA ............................................................................. 5 A. SLIP RENTAL RATES ..................................................................................................... 5 B. SLIP SUPPLY AND OCCUPANCY RATES ......................................................................... 5 C. UNDERSTANDING REVENUE AND EXPENSE DATA AND PROJECTIONS IN THIS REPORT . 7 D. HISTORICAL OPM REVENUES ...................................................................................... 8 E. HISTORICAL OPM OPERATING EXPENSES AND NET INCOME ...................................... 10 F. CONTEXT: OYSTER POINT AND PILLAR POINT HISTORICAL DATA ............................... 11 III. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO OYSTER POINT MARINA...................................................... 13 A. SUMMARY OF OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 13 B. REDUCTION IN LEASE REVENUE DUE TO LAND CONVEYANCE .................................... 14 C. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS NOT INCLUDED IN CIP ....................................
  • San Francisco Takes the Lead on Bird Safe Buildings

    San Francisco Takes the Lead on Bird Safe Buildings

    vol. 96 no. 6 November–December 2011 the newsletter of the golden gate audubon society founded 1917 It’s Chris tmas Count Time ound up your birding friends and join R GGAS’s 2011 Christmas Bird Counts: Oakland on Sunday, December 18, and San Francisco on Tuesday, December 27. You’ll have an enjoyable day of birding, one that you can top off with a delicious dinner and the chance to hear what birds others have found that day, including rarities you might want to seek. The counts are a popular tradition. Oakland usually attracts 150-plus fi eld observers, and San Fran- cisco more than 90. Glenn Nevill/www.raptor-gallery.com Invitations to sign up have been e-mailed to Peregrine Falcon fl edgling in San Francisco. people who participated in either count in recent years and provided an e-mail address. San Fran- cisco co-compiler Alan Hopkins urges would-be participants to sign up promptly. “Holiday time San Francisco Takes the is busy for all of us, so it really helps if you sign up early, to be assured of a spot on a team. Lead on Bird Safe Buildings Remember, we welcome birders of every level. If you’re able, please help the environment by he city of San Francisco recently took bold action by approving the strictest signing up online—this will save paper and the T standards in the United States for protecting birds from building collisions. cost of mailing. If you’ve participated recently On September 27, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the Standards for but don’t have Internet access, we’ll snail-mail Bird Safe Buildings, a 44-page document developed by the San Francisco Planning forms to you.
  • Restoring the Estuary

    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.
  • 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule

    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.