2 BiologicalBiological FoundationsFoundations ofof thethe SanSan FranciscoFrancisco BayBay JointJoint VentureVenture US COASTAL SURVEY, 1857 Transforming the Landscape destroyed or significantly altered over 80 percent of the tidal marshes and 40 percent of the mudflats that once rimmed two-thirds of the Bay’s shores. efore the mid-1800s, the San Francisco Bay was During this same period, riparian areas, seasonal Bringed by roughly 190,000 acres of tidal marshes, wetlands, vernal pools, native grasslands, and 50,000 acres of tidal flats, 85,000 acres of seasonal coastal scrub have all suffered similar, if not greater, wetlands and associated uplands (including vernal losses due to development pressures. pools), and over 69,000 acres of riparian habitat, as The destruction or alteration of wetlands is illustrated in Figure 2-1, (Historical View of San not limited to the forces of urbanization. Pollution, Francisco Bay, circa 1770–1820). The San Francisco sedimentation, and water diversion have degraded Bay and its adjoining watersheds was one of the the health of the surviving wetlands. Historic influ- richest and most diverse estuaries on the West ences such as hydraulic mining also play a role, and Coast; it supported populations of fish and wildlife their impacts can be persistent over time. The Gold that today seem unimaginable. Early reports of the Rush-era mining of the mid-1800s sent enormous Bay Area describe vast expanses of wetlands inhab- sediment loads into the Bay, causing changes in ited by millions of waterfowl, schools of salmon so habitat type and location, particularly of mudflats in dense that they choked the mile-wide Carquinez the North Bay. What remains of the Bay ecosystem Strait, and plentiful numbers of grizzly bears and is further stressed and modified by the impacts of other big game animals. freshwater diversions for urban uses around the Since the late 1800s, the growth of the human Bay, and agricultural and urban uses in the Central population has effected traumatic changes to the Valley and southern California. Up to 70 percent of natural landscape of the Bay Area. Large tracts the freshwater flows that would naturally enter the of tidal marshes have been filled for urban develop- Bay through the San Joaquin and Sacramento River ment or federal and state projects, or diked for salt Systems is now diverted. This has increased the net production or agriculture. Today, only 40,000 acres salinity of the Bay with a consequent alteration of of tidal marsh remain, as shown in Figure the plant and animal species residing in many wet- 2-2, (Modern View of San Francisco Bay, circa 1998). land communities. Local land uses have played Much of what remains has been degraded, and less direct and indirect roles in damaging wetlands: the than three percent of original wetland acreage is in footprint of new buildings still displaces them; sedi- relatively pristine condition (State of the Estuary ment loads and erosion caused by development Report 1992–1997). Development pressures have degrade them. Stormwaters contaminated by auto- 8 Restoring the Estuary Figure 2-1 Historical View of San Francisco Bay (circa 1770–1820) Malaca Chocoime Petaluma Suisun Napa Alaguali Olompali Ompin Carquin Omiomi Habasto Huchiun-Aguasto Chupcan Huimen Huchiun Deep Bay/Channel (>18 feet) Shallow Bay/Channel (<18 feet) Tidal Flat Jalquin Tidal Marsh Yelamu Yrgin Urebure Tuibun Ssalson Alson Lamchin SCALE 1:450,000 Puichon 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Miles "Santa Ysabel" 0 4 8 12 16 Kilometers Tamien Tribal regions courtesy of Randall Milliken. Bay Area EcoAtlas ©1999 San Francisco Estuary Institute Chapter 2—Biological Foundations of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture 9 Figure 2-2 Modern View of San Francisco Bay (circa 1998) Napa 101 Fairfield Petaluma 29 Sonoma Baylands 80 37 Novato 680 Vallejo Mare Island sun Bay Hamilton Field Sui San Pablo Bay 4 Sacramento–San Joaquin San Rafael 80 Concord Rivers Confluence Richmond 580 101 Deep Bay/Channel (>18 feet) Shallow Bay/Channel (<18 feet) Oakland Tidal Flat Tidal Marsh Diked Bayland San Francisco 101 Pacific Ocean 880 Hayward 92 San Mateo Fremont 84 Redwood City SCALE 1:450,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Miles 101 0 4 8 12 16 Kilometers San Jose Bay Area EcoAtlas Version 1.50 ©1999 San Francisco Estuary Institute 10 Restoring the Estuary motive metals, pesticides from lawns, and high bac- terial counts continue to stress wetlands and pollute the Bay. Such drastic impacts to the Bay’s wetland ecosystem have put fish and wildlife populations, as well as the ecological health of the Bay, at risk. Most of the threatened and endangered species, and almost all of the commercial and recreational fish species in San Francisco Bay depend on wetland and riparian habitat. Numerous adult and juvenile fish species that are dependent on tidal marshes, such as Chinook salmon and delta smelt, have declined dramatically due to the loss of habitat. The loss of a once-thriving fishing industry has also severely Hydraulic mining in the Sierra foothills during the Gold Rush impacted the economies of numerous Bay cities. sent vast amounts of sediment downstream and into San Wetland losses and degradation would have Francisco Bay. COURTESY OF BANCROFT LIBRARY, UC BERKELEY been even more severe were it not for state and fed- eral regulations, active public and nonprofit acquisi- tion programs, and increased public awareness. The and restoring the remaining wetlands of San Fran- protection and enhancement of wetlands and ripari- cisco Bay have skyrocketed over the past decade, an corridors has been given a tremendous boost and are likely to continue to climb. Restoration with the growth of watershed planning efforts that work, which often meant only breaching a dike, now bring diverse stakeholders together. Approximately may cost from $4,000 to $20,000 per acre, given the 16,300 acres of wetlands were permanently protect- need for extensive grading, planting, new dike con- ed in the Bay region between 1992 and 1999. In addi- struction, or temporary irrigation. tion, about 9,040 acres of degraded or former wet- land were restored and enhanced during this period of time. (CCMP Workbook, 1996; SFBJV, 1999) While these figures are encouraging, much of the reported Wildlife of San Francisco Bay acreage is submerged tideland and represents a fraction of the potential. There is a tremendous amount of protection, restoration, and enhancement Waterfowl Use of the San Francisco Bay Area work remaining for wetlands, riparian areas, and associated uplands. The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most impor- The establishment of the SFBJV was hastened tant coastal wintering and migrational areas for by the growing realization among all parties that Pacific Flyway waterfowl populations. Significant immediate action is needed. The costs of acquiring numbers of the Pacific Flyway scaup (70%), scoter (60%), canvasback (42%), and bufflehead (38%) were located in the San Francisco Bay/Delta. According to 1998 California Fish and Wildlife surveys, San Francisco Bay held the majority of California’s 1999 wintering scaup (85%), scoter (89%), and canvas- back (70%) populations. More than 56 percent of the State’s 1999 wintering diving ducks were located in the San Francisco Bay proper, which includes the salt ponds and wetlands adjacent to the North and South Bays. Although the San Francisco Bay is most recog- nized for its importance to diving ducks, large num- bers of dabbling ducks like pintail (23,500) and wigeon (14,000) were observed during the 1999 mid- winter waterfowl survey. For a more detailed analy- sis of winter waterfowl surveys for the San Francisco Dredging channels and levees have dramatically altered the Bay Area, see Appendix F. face of the Estuary and armored its margins. Regionally, the greatest variation observed COURTESY OF BANCROFT LIBRARY, UC BERKELEY in waterfowl numbers between years and seasons Chapter 2—Biological Foundations of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture 11 The San Francisco Bay is a key wintering and stopover area along the Pacific Flyway. US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE was in Suisun Bay, followed by the North Bay and North Bay may be due to the variability of salinity North Bay salt pond regions. Waterfowl use was and the presence of wetlands in the adjacent delta. most consistent in the Central and South Bays, San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay are greatly influenced with some variation in the South Bay salt pond by outflows from the Sacramento and San Joaquin region. The greater range of waterfowl use of the Rivers. 12 Restoring the Estuary with wetlands. Enhancement and restoration of wetlands throughout the region will benefit the populations of most of these species. The number of special- status species resident in or using Bay wetlands demon- strates the crucial impor- tance of these areas, their level of degradation, and the overwhelming need to hasten restoration efforts. Shorebirds. Shorebirds are among the most conspicuous wildlife of the North and South bays. Thirty-eight species Canvasbacks take flight on Suisun Marsh. CENTRAL VALLEY HABITAT JOINT VENTURE,1995 of wintering and migratory shorebirds were found in the Waterfowl production in the San Francisco Bay Bay between 1988 and 1995 on surveys performed by Area is typically limited to small numbers of mal- the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO). Total lards, gadwalls, northern pintails, cinnamon teals, numbers of shorebirds on these surveys ranged from and ruddy ducks. Tidal marshes, diked wetlands, 340,000–396,000 in the fall, 281,000–343,000 in the and seasonal wetlands are the primary habitats of winter, to 589,000–838,000 in the spring. Approxi- nesting waterfowl. In addition, Canada geese have mately two-thirds of the migrating and wintering nested in the area in recent years.