DOCSLIB.ORG

SPECIAL Moving from Talk to Action NEWS MAGAZINE ADAPTATION VOL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY Fight or Flight at the Coast? North Bay’s Highway to the Future Developers Hedge Around Higher Water Urban Farms Feed Change WATER ENVIRONMENT CLIMATE EQUITY JUNE 2020 SPECIAL Moving from talk to action NEWS MAGAZINE ADAPTATION VOL. 29, NO. 2 on resilience in 12 Bay and ONLINE FEATURES Delta counties. WWW.SFESTUARY.ORG/ ISSUE ESTUARY-NEWS 2 ESTUARY JUNE 2020 Projects !in this Issue 2 1 3 1. Lake Sonoma YOLO Warm Springs Dam, p.22 YOLO 2. Capay Valley, Full Belly Farm, p.33 CapayCaCapapay 3. River Gardens Farms, p.34 4. Yolo Land & Cattle, p.33 SONOMA 4 5. Corte Madera, p.20 NAPA SantSantta 6. San Rafael/Tiscornia Rosa Marsh Restoration, p.20 RoRosasa 7. Highway 37/Sonoma Creek, p.28 S o n 8. Napa, p.24 o m 8 a 9. Benicia, p.28 C r e 10. Suisun Marsh, p.28 e SOLANO k TToomalomamaleleses 11. Sherman Island, p.35 NapaNaNapapa 12. Twitchell Island, p.35 MarshallMMaarsrshah llll 13. Staten Island, p.35 FFaairfieldirirfiiele d 14. Richmond Shoreline, p.4 7 15. Planting Justice Nursery, p.31 10 SACRAMENTO 16. Alameda, p.30 MARIN San 17. Eden Landing, p.30 Pablo Bay RioRiR o VistaViVistst a 9 131 18. Alviso Shoreline, p.13 San Rafael 12 SaSan RaR fafaele BeniciaBeBenin cic a 19. Coyote and Penitencia Creeks 6 14 111 Confluence, p.12 5 North Richmond BolinasBolinas CorteCoCortrte NoNortth RiR chchmomonnd 20. Anderson Reservoir, p.11 MaderMaMadederara SAN JOAQUIN 21. Dumbarton Bridge Western Landing/ San Francisquito Creek, p.14 P a 23 C ONTRA 22. Colma Creek, p.15 OaklandOaOaklklana d C ONTRA DELTA c 23. San Francisco Seawall, p.7 i SanSan Francisanccisccoco 15 C OSTA f AlamedaAAllamamededa RoRoadsads i 16 c SanSan BrunoBrrunu o ART Bay Area Hotspots * Pacificacifica 22 South OpenOpen wawaterter at prespresentent San Francisco HaywarHaHaywward 17 Bay ALAMEDA 36" Sea Level Rise Flood Depth (ft) FrFremontememonont O 21 0-2 ito qu c s ci an 2-4 n Fr 18 Sa e 4-6 a AlAlvisovvisos 6-8 n SAN 19 SANTA 8-10 C o SanSaS n JoseJoJosese y MATEO o 10-12 MATEO t e CLARA C CLARA r 12+ e e k 01020mi ° 20 Map: Amber Manfree. *Source: Base map updated from BCDC ART Bay Area 2020 report including “hot spots” where vulnerabilities in transportation, priority development areas, and community risk from sea-level rise overlap. 3 Region oceans: Northern California has seen RBD left off, while new communica- an almost relentless chain of extreme tion forums such as BayCAN are Moves to weather events, including flood- fueling regional progress. Adapt ing from wetter-than-usual winter Two themes link stories from the CARIAD HAYES storms (even as total rainfall remains past and the present: first, the criti- THRONSON, well below normal), giant wildfires, cal, overarching need for enormous, GUEST EDITOR and blisteringly hot days. stable financial resources for adapta- In 2017, I wrote for this publica- With this special issue, we at tion—the Restoration Authority can’t tion about nascent efforts to address ESTUARY wanted to look at the pay for everything; and second, the sea-level rise in various communities steps communities in each county importance of looking at every invest- around the Bay. At the time, many around the Bay and Delta are taking ment and land use decision from all of the efforts were taking their cues to adapt to our new climate reality. angles. Projects that achieve multiple from the detailed inundation maps The projects explored in these pages benefits, prepare us for multiple haz- developed by BCDC’s Adapting to Ris- range from daunting infrastructure ards, and consider multiple jurisdic- ing Tides (ART) project. A year later, improvements to climate-friendly tions offer the best path to resilience. the Resilient by Design Bay Area farming practices; they are driven by Some of the most exciting projects Challenge (RBD) elicited innovative county and municipal governments, explored in this issue will potentially visions for building resilient com- state and local agencies, community build communities that are not only munities in vulnerable areas. Since organizations, and even private land- resilient in the face of climate change, then, it has become clearer than owners. Strong planning and power- but altogether healthier and more liv- ever that climate change is upon us ful science inform them, including able. We can get there, but it will take now, and that it means much more ART’s new region-wide analyses. courage, collaboration, and conviction than melting icebergs and swelling Some projects seek to pick up where on everyone’s part. PERSPECTIVE Bill 1 Advanced Adaptation Planning Program—but have been essential to For Resilience, Think Equity help build buy-in from local stakehold- ALLISON BROOKS, BAY AREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE ers, foster informed decision-making, and move creatively from planning to Never before ensure that every precious dime spent implementation. Local leaders urgent- has it been more is responsive to the current crisis and ly need these resources to prepare for important to imagine and invest in a serves as an investment in a more what’s ahead. future that is decidedly different than resilient and equitable future for all. As the world we are facing today. The this special issue of ESTUARY illumi- Early in the epidemic, the coordina- COVID-19 pandemic and the protests nates, the San Francisco Bay Area has tion demonstrated by Bay Area county sparked by police brutality have laid a diverse range of projects underway health departments was effective in out in stark terms the underlying sys- that—if fully funded rather than requir- saving lives. Soon individual health temic inequalities and racism in our ing years of slogging to piece together departments began tracking local data society that make poor, elderly, black, resources—could greatly accelerate on a more granular level to identify and brown people socioeconomically efforts to adapt. These projects include hot spots and stablize conditions. This vulnerable and expose them to trauma improvements to vulnerable infra- led to the current situation, where and risk. structure as well as community-based health departments tailor their policy responses to local circumstances, These vulnerabilities will only be strategies to manage local threats to health and safety. while at the same time embracing exacerbated by climate change, un- common policies like requiring masks less we work together now to achieve While stimulus packages often put and social distancing. multiple objectives: address inequality the focus on “shovel-ready” projects, and systemic racism; create equity in it’s useful to recognize that the best Climate change will demand simi- terms of health and access to oppor- way to build a fair, just, and resilient lar responses, including regional-scale tunity for low-income communities economy is to support projects that coordination, analysis, and resource of color; and invest in strategies to can achieve multiple objectives, ensur- generation to support local ingenuity. reduce the impacts of extreme storms, ing that future generations benefit Through this unprecedented experi- flooding, sea-level rise, wildfires, and from these one-time investments. This ence, individuals, communities, and lo- other hazards. COVID-19 also makes could mean embracing complicated cal leaders have all felt both hopeless an indisputable case for a decidedly projects that require multiple phases and hopeful. As we prepare for bigger unsexy focus on preparedness—mak- of engineering and environmental changes ahead, remembering both ing investments today to prepare our analysis, and that ensure local priori- our shared vulnerabilities and those of communities for an uncertain tomor- ties and needs are met through inclu- our most at-risk communities will be row. sive community engagement. key to building lasting resilience. As Congress and California’s state Some projects highlighted in this Allison Brooks is Executive Director of Bay government consider stimulus pack- issue have been funded in part by Area Regional Collaborative. ages intended to help our economy valuable grant programs that no recover, we have a responsibility to longer exist—such as Caltrans’ Senate 4 ESTUARY JUNE 2020 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Greener, Fatter Levees Boon to Richmond Resilience? DANIEL MCGLYNN, REPORTER ecologically important plant and ani- cities within the county, along with In early May, despite the now mal species. Existing wetlands in the the county itself (large swaths, like normal issues of groups gathering for vicinity are among the best examples North Richmond, are unincorporated video calls and virtual PowerPoints, of intact marsh environments left in and under county control) are plan- the San Francisco Bay Restoration the Bay Area. ning projects to prepare for future Authority voted unanimously to fund As the name implies, the North weather volatility. the early stages of a massive new Richmond Living Levee won’t just So far the adaptation efforts in infrastructure project along the North be a static flood control barrier. the county have been decentralized. Richmond shoreline with a grant The plans call for using the levee to There is no clear-cut guidance or of $644,709. The shoreline is now address local community demand overarching governance structure one step closer to becoming home for more access to the shoreline, as with the teeth or budget to hasten to a horizontal, or living, levee that most recently outlined in both the the pace of resiliency projects. The provides both flood protection and 2018 Resilient by Design challenge county does have a five-year-old cli- habitat. The proposed project, in the and the earlier North Richmond mate action plan focused on increas- planning stages since 2017, will be Shoreline Vision plan. Key among the ing the use of renewable energy.
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
  • 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.
  • Proposal for Pillar Point Rvpark Public Restroom and Green Space Design,Engineering,Permitting

    Proposal for Pillar Point Rvpark Public Restroom and Green Space Design,Engineering,Permitting

    PPRROOPPOOSSAALL FFOORR PPIILLLLAARR PPOOIINNTT RRVV PPAARRKK PPUUBBLLIICC RREESSTTRROOOOMM AANNDD GGRREEEENN SSPPAACCEE DDEESSIIGGNN,, EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG,, PPEERRMMIITTTTIINNGG AANNDD CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN SSUUPPPPOORRTT SSEERRVVIICCEESS Submitted to: San Mateo County Harbor District Submitted by: Questa Engineering Corporation In Association with: Ware Associates Zeiger Engineers, Inc. mack5 October 7, 2019 October 7, 2019 San Mateo County Harbor District Attn: Deputy Secretary of the District 504 Ave Alhambra, Ste. 200 El Granada, CA 94018 Subject: Proposal for Pillar Point RV Park Public Restroom and Green Space Design, Engineering, Permitting and Construction Support Services Dear Mr. Moren: Questa Engineering Corporation is pleased to present this Proposal for the Pillar Point Project. We have assembled a highly qualified team, including Ware Associates (architecture/engineering services), Zeiger Engineers, Inc. (electrical engineering), and mack5 (cost estimating). Questa is widely recognized as one of California’s leading park and trail planning and engineering design firms for open space and natural park areas in constrained and challenging sites, including coastal and beach areas. We also have extensive experience in trail planning and design in parks, and sites with complex environmental and geotechnical issues. Questa provides complete services in planning, landscape architecture and engineering design of recreational improvement projects, from preliminary engineering investigations/feasibility studies and constraints
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf

    Goga Wrfr.Pdf

    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
  • Bothin Marsh 46

    Bothin Marsh 46

    EMERGENT ECOLOGIES OF THE BAY EDGE ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE CMG Summer Internship 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Research Introduction 2 Approach 2 What’s Out There Regional Map 6 Site Visits ` 9 Salt Marsh Section 11 Plant Community Profiles 13 What’s Changing AUTHORS Impacts of Sea Level Rise 24 Sarah Fitzgerald Marsh Migration Process 26 Jeff Milla Yutong Wu PROJECT TEAM What We Can Do Lauren Bergenholtz Ilia Savin Tactical Matrix 29 Julia Price Site Scale Analysis: Treasure Island 34 Nico Wright Site Scale Analysis: Bothin Marsh 46 This publication financed initiated, guided, and published under the direction of CMG Landscape Architecture. Conclusion Closing Statements 58 Unless specifically referenced all photographs and Acknowledgments 60 graphic work by authors. Bibliography 62 San Francisco, 2019. Cover photo: Pump station fronting Shorebird Marsh. Corte Madera, CA RESEARCH INTRODUCTION BREADTH As human-induced climate change accelerates and impacts regional map coastal ecologies, designers must anticipate fast-changing conditions, while design must adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. With this task in mind, this research project investigates the needs of existing plant communities in the San plant communities Francisco Bay, explores how ecological dynamics are changing, of the Bay Edge and ultimately proposes a toolkit of tactics that designers can use to inform site designs. DEPTH landscape tactics matrix two case studies: Treasure Island Bothin Marsh APPROACH Working across scales, we began our research with a broad suggesting design adaptations for Treasure Island and Bothin survey of the Bay’s ecological history and current habitat Marsh.
  • 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
  • Native Oyster Reef Construction Underway in Richmond San

    Native Oyster Reef Construction Underway in Richmond San

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact: Taylor Samuelson [email protected] 510-286-4182 April 19, 2019 Native Oyster Reef Construction Underway in Richmond San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines Project 350 Reef Structures will become habitat for Native Oysters and Pacific Herring Richmond, CA - From April 9-30, 350 oyster reef elements are being placed in nearshore areas to create a living shoreline near Giant Marsh at Point Pinole Regional Shoreline managed by East Bay Regional Park District in the City of Richmond. Eelgrass beds will be planted next to the reefs in the following weeks to create a habitat ideal for the recruitment of native Olympia oysters and other aquatic species. Living shorelines use nature-based infrastructure to create shoreline buffers that reduce the impacts from sea level rise and erosion, while creating habitat for fish and wildlife. Though a relatively new climate adaptation technique, living shorelines are proving to be an effective approach to protecting coastal resources and shoreline communities. The Giant Marsh project is one of a small number of living shoreline trial projects taking place in the San Francisco Bay, but is the only one that connects the submerged underwater habitats with adjacent wetlands and upland ecotone plant communities. This innovative demonstration project is testing a combined living shorelines approach with habitat elements at different tidal elevations at the same site, with a goal of encouraging other cities and partners to undertake this kind of climate adaptation habitat restoration project at additional sites in the bay. The multi-habitat project at Giant Marsh builds on lessons learned from the Coastal Conservancy’s living shoreline project constructed directly across the bay in San Rafael in 2012, which included the construction of oyster reefs and eelgrass beds.
  • Navarro Watershed Restoration Plan

    Navarro Watershed Restoration Plan

    NAVARRO WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN A JOINT PROJECT OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY WATER AGENCY THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY THE ANDERSON VALLEY LAND TRUST Prepared by: Entrix, Inc. Pacific Watershed Associates Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. The Navarro Watershed Community Advisory Group Daniel T. Sicular, Ph.D. JUNE, 1998 NAVARRO WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN Published Jointly by: ANDERSON VALLEY LAND TRUST, INCORPORATED P.O. Box 1000 Boonville, CA 95415 (707) 895-2090 CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY 1330 Broadway Oakland, CA 94612-2530 (510) 286-1015 MENDOCINO COUNTY WATER AGENCY Courthouse Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-4589 This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... List of Figures........................................................................................................................ Glossary ................................................................................................................................. Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................. Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Basis of Need for Restoration Plan...............................................................
  • Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX

    Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX

    City of Richmond Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX City of Richmond Climate Action Plan Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study Acknowledgements The City of Richmond has been an active participant in the Contra Costa County Adapting to Rising Tides Project, led by the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the San Francisco Estuary Institute, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and consulting firm AECOM. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) completed this Adaptation Study in coordination with BCDC, relying in part on reports and maps developed for the Adapting to Rising Tides project to assess the City of Richmond’s vulnerabilities with respect to sea level rise and coastal flooding. City of Richmond Climate Action Plan F-i Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study This page intentionally left blank F-ii City of Richmond Climate Action Plan Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study Table of Contents Acknowledgements i 1. Executive Summary 1 1.1 Coastal Flooding 2 1.2 Water Supply 2 1.3 Critical Transportation Assets 3 1.4 Vulnerable Populations 3 1.5 Summary 3 2. Study Methodology 4 2.1 Scope and Organize 4 2.2 Assess 4 2.3 Define 4 2.4 Plan 5 2.5 Implement and Monitor 5 3. Setting 6 3.1 Statewide Climate Change Projections 6 3.2 Bay Area Region Climate Change Projections 7 3.3 Community Assets 8 3.4 Relevant Local Planning Initiatives 9 3.5 Relevant State and Regional Planning Initiatives 10 4.
  • A Century of Delta Salt Water Barriers

    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.
  • Control Calendar (PDF

    Control Calendar (PDF

    2007 San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Control Program Schedule Updated: 9/14/07 More information on: Treatment methods Imazapyr Site Locations Treatment Location Treatment Method (gray areas denote sites where treatment was not planned this year or was completed) Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Sub-Area Amphibious Aerial: Aerial: Spray Covering with Manual Site # Site Name Sub-Area Name County Treatment date Truck Backpack Boat Excavation Number vehicle Broadcast Ball Geotextile Fabric Digging 01a Channel Mouth Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 XX 01b Lower Channel (not including mouth) Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 XX 01c Upper Channel Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 Alameda Flood Control XX 1 Upper Channel - Union City Blvd to I- Channel 01d Alameda 7/23-7/27/07 XX 880 01e Strip Marsh No. of Channel Mouth Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 X 01f Pond 3-AFCC Alameda 7/31-8/2/07 XX Belmont Slough/Island, North Point, 02a Bird Island, Steinberger Slough/ San Mateo 9/10-9/13/07 XX Redwood Shores Steinberger Slough South, Corkscrew 02b San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 XXX Slough, Redwood Creek North 02c B2 North Quadrant San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 XX 02d B2 South Quadrant - Rookery San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 X 2 Bair/Greco Islands 02e West Point Slough NW San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 XX 02f Greco Island North San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 X 02g West Point Slough SW and East San Mateo 8/27- 8/30/07 XX 02h Greco Island South San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 X 02i Ravenswood Slough & Mouth San Mateo 7/31-8/2/07 XX 02j Ravenswood Open Space Preserve San Mateo 9/10-9/13/07 X 03a Blackie's Creek (above bridge) Marin 8/29/07 X 3 Blackie's
  • 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.