ORKBOOK ROJECT CARDREPORT ENVIRONMENTAL...

B AY - D E LTAE N V I R O N M E N T A L

R E P O R TC A R D

SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY PROJECT

CCMP WORKBOOK

SEPTEMBER 2001

C O M P R E H E N S I V E C O N S E R VA T I O N A N D M A N A G E M E N T P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N P R O G R E S S 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 1

INTRODUCTION

The waters of the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary are used bymillions of Californians everyday. In homes, people flush toilets,wash cars, fill their glasses and garden hoses from the tap. Incities, industries and municipalities use water to cool and clean,and then collect, recycle, treat and discharge wastewater andrunoff. In ports, shippers arrive from foreign lands, bringing car-goes, ballast water and exotic species. In the country, farmers irri-gate crops and water livestock. In the hills and mountains, bigdams block rivers and collect water, and big pumps and canalsconvey it to homes and businesses throughout the state. In someyears, droughts steal supplies, in others, storms overwhelm leveesand flood homes. But no matter the weather, there never seemsto be enough water to keep the fish healthy, the marshes wet andthe thirst of millions slaked. And everywhere the water movesacross the land it collects particles, pesticides and other pollutantsand carries them to our creeks, rivers and bay.

A host of government bodies manages and regulates all theseactivities. One mans the export pumps and controls reservoirreleases; another protects endangered frogs and birds; anotherissues health warnings to consumers of Bay fish. Some decide howmuch pollution must be removed from an industry’s wastewaterbefore it can stream into rivers and the Bay. Some decide howmany acres of wetlands or feet of streamside must be bought orbuilt to offset losses to development. Environmental and commu-nity groups, meanwhile, champion more flows, more wetlands,more freeflowing creeks and fewer chemicals for the sake of theenvironment.

In this context, what is it than environmental managers andconcerned organizations and communities should be doing to pro-tect and restore the Estuary? That "To Do" list came out in 1993 inthe form of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Planfor the Bay and Delta.

The plan lists 145 actions to save fish, conserve water, protectwetlands, reduce pollution, and facilitate environmentally soundland use decisionmaking. It was developed by the San FranciscoEstuary Project, a cooperative federal-state partnership organized

through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s NationalEstuary Program. The project brought together 100 private, gov-ernment and community interests to develop a consensus plan,which was then signed by the Governor and the U.S. EPAAdministrator in 1993.

The CCMP serves as a perfect litmus test for a report card onhow successful we’ve been in balancing environmental protectionand beneficial use of the Estuary’s resources. This is the third suchreport card the Estuary Project has released since 1993. The firsttotaled up progress on all 145 CCMP actions, the second on tentop priorities, and this third one on eight revised priorities (encom-passing 35 CCMP actions) chosen as in special need of attentionand action. The scope of any such accounting in an area draining40% of California remains near impossible, but a fair share of themajor efforts appear in these pages.

In August 2001, the S.F. Estuary Project brought together itsstakeholders to revisit the top eight priorities. The group refinedand reworded the priorities for the coming years. The new priori-ties are: 1) Expand, restore and protect Bay and Delta wetlands;2) Reduce the impact of invasive species on the Estuary throughprevention, control, eradication and education; 3) Protect andrestore watersheds throughout the Estuary; 4) Create incentivesthat encourage governments, landowners and communities toprotect and restore the Estuary; 5) Minimize or eliminate pollutionof the Estuary from all sources; 6) Increase public awareness of theEstuary’s natural resources and the impacts of human activity onthem; 7) Expand the regional monitoring program to address allkey CCMP issues, including pollution, wetlands, watersheds,dredging, biological resources, land use and flows, and integratethe results of scientific monitoring into management and regulato-ry actions; and 8) Promulgate baseline inflow standards for SanFrancisco, San Pablo and Suisun Bays to protect and restore theEstuary ecosystem. Also in August 2001, stakeholders and leadagencies decided to begin a review of the CCMP’s ImplementationStructure and examine what, if any, changes need to be made toaddress shifting priorities, resources, and mandates.

REPORT CARD CONTENTS

WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

EXOTIC SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. . 14

RUNOFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

ESTUARY EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

REGIONAL MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

INFLOW STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

APPENDIX A: WETLANDS ACCOUNTING . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

AGENCY ABBREVIATIONS

Army Corps: United States Army Corps of EngineersBay Commission: San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development CommissionBurRec: United States Bureau of ReclamationCALFED: CALFED Bay-Delta ProgramCal Fish & Game: California Department of Fish and GameCentral Valley Regional Board: Central Valley Regional

Water Quality Control BoardDept. of Water Resources: Department of Water ResourcesIEP: Interagency Ecological ProgramS.F. Estuary Institute: San Francisco Estuary InstituteS.F. Estuary Project: San Francisco Estuary ProjectS.F. Regional Board: San Francisco Bay Regional Water

Quality Control BoardState Board: California Water Resources Control BoardU.S. EPA: United States Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Fish & Wildlife: United States Fish and Wildlife

Service

1

C O M P R E H E N S I V E C O N S E R V A T I O N A N D M A N A G E M E N T P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N P R O G R E S S 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 1

BAY-DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CARD 1999-2001

2


RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

SUBSTANTIVE

WM 4.1 Restore and acquire non-wetlandareas to wetlands.

AR 2.1 Implement ballast water regulations.

LU 4.1 Educate the public about humaneffects.

AR 5.1 Identify long-term water quality andflow standards and measures.

AR 5.2 Develop EIS/EIR on flow and man-agement alternatives.

MODERATE

WM 1.1 Prepare regional wetlands man-agement plans.

WM 2.1.3 Establish implementation pro-gram wetland policies.

WM 2.4 Expand landowner assistance.

AR 2.3 Control problem exotics.

LU 3.1 Prepare and implement water-shed management plans.

PP 2.1 Pursue a mass emissions strategy. PP 2.5 Control measures for transporta-

tion pollution.PP 2.6 Control agricultural sources of

toxics.

PI 1.1 Build CCMP awareness.

AR 1.1 Coordinate existing monitoringprograms.

AR 4.1 Adopt water quality and flowstandards.

AR 6.1 Provide instream flows and tem-peratures for Central Valley salmon.

SOME

WL 2.2 Enhance biodiversity.

AR 2.2 Prohibit exotic species introduction.AR 2.4 Educate the public about exotics. WL 3.1 Implement predator control pro-

grams.

LU 1.1 Incorporate watershed protection inLocal General Plans.

LU 2.1 Consistent local government poli-cies.

PP 2.4 Improve urban runoff management. PP 2.5 Long-term pollution prevention edu-

cation.

PI 1.2 & 1.3 Opportunities for citizeninvolvement.

RM 2.1 Develop regional monitoring strate-gy.

AR 5.3 Implement flow and managementalternatives.

AR 6.2 Develop San Joaquin River plan.

NEGLIGIBLE

LU 1.3 State land use integration.

UNKNOWN

LU 5.1 Create economic incentives for localgovernment.

LU 5.2 Develop new funding mechanisms.LU 5.3 Create market-based incentives.

AR 6.2 Implement upper Sacramento Riverplan.

FULL

PI 1.5 Provide a central clearing-house for Estuary information.

WET

LAN

DS

EXO

TIC

SPEC

IES

WAT

ERSH

EDM

AN

AG

EMEN

TEC

ON

OM

ICIN

CEN

TIVE

SRU

NO

FFES

TUA

RYED

UCA

TIO

NRE

GIO

NA

LM

ON

ITO

RIN

GIN

FLO

WST

AN

DA

RDS

Rating Notes

UNKNOWN Unknown (research incomplete) or no longer applicable. NEGLIGIBLE No or negligible or peripheral progress.

SOME Minimal progress (up to 25%).MODERATE Fair level of progress, clear strides ahead (25-50%).

SUBSTANTIVE Major progress (50-75%).FULL Full implementation completed or on the horizon (75-100%).

The ratings given to each action in this summary and in theReport Card were added as a rough, ballpark evaluation of thelevel of implementation progress.

REPORT CARD

3


RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

SUMMARY

Wetlands, saving and restoring them, continue tobe the top priority of those championing the CCMP’svision. Only 3-4 % of the Bay-Delta’s historic wetlandsremain. Acquisitions of fields, creekbanks, islands,floodplains and other former, current and future wet-lands have tripled since the last three-year reporting

period, with at least 33,042 acres secured and protected since April1999 (10,183 acres in 1996-1999). Restoration and enhancementwork continued at a steady pace, meanwhile, with 11,420 acres and1,320 linear feet of completed projects since 1999. Plans for 19 wet-land and riparian habitat projects will improve an additional 25,502acres and 36,020 linear feet. The amount of wetlands lost during thissame period remained small, although the extent of Delta losses is notknown. In the Bay region, 122 acres of wetlands were filled and 204acres gained as a result of 401 certification waivers and developmentmitigation projects since 1999 (see Appendix A for details).

Over the past three years, regional interests have also steamedahead with plans, partnerships and fundraising to implement theBaylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals (a 1999 report providing a scientificrationale for what kinds of wetlands and where are needed to restorethe Bay ecosystem). Though no resulting regulatory-based regionalwetlands management plan has been developed, in 2001 26 agencies,organizations and private companies signed on to the S.F. Bay JointVenture’s implementation strategy called Restoring the Estuary, which isbased on the Goals. CALFED, meanwhile, continued to pour hundredsof millions into restoration projects and ecosystem planning andprocesses. Other points of progress in regional wetlands planninginclude the updating of the wetlands and wildlife section of the BayCommission’s Bay Plan, the launching of a regional wetlands monitor-ing program, and the creation of a Joint Aquatic Resource PermitApplication Center by the S.F. Estuary Project, ABAG and local agen-cies. Its purpose is to provide improved wetland protection and region-al coordination while streamlining the permitting process for wetlandrelated projects. Funding and technical assistance to individuallandowners has also increased since 1999, as has access to clearing-houses, web sites, databases and other informational resources on wet-lands and restoration work.

Exotic species control also got a big boost over the last three years,with enactment of a new state law in 1999 (AB 703) requiring mid-ocean ballast water exchange for all ships coming into California frommore than 200 miles offshore. Since January 2000, 90% of vessels

entering California ports have complied, spurred on by a successfulprogram of inspections and enforcement by the State LandsCommission. More research is being done on on-board ballast treat-ment technologies, and active invasive species control programs,including eradication efforts, are underway for Atlantic cordgrass, pur-ple loosestrife, water hyacinth, giant reed and Chinese mitten crabs.

In terms of other CCMP priorities, watershed management activi-ties – aimed at reducing runoff and protecting stream environmentsand wetlands – grew in San Jose (sustainable city guidelines and ripar-ian restoration project), the Santa Clara Basin (flood protection andwatershed planning), Oakland (protection of 15 creeks), Sacramento(MOU on lower American River), and through priorities on watershedplanning established by CALFED and the S.F. Bay Joint Venture,among others. The extent of work to create economic incentives toencourage local governments, landowners and communities to pro-tect the Estuary is not known. But programs to reduce pollutionfrom urban and agricultural runoff burgeoned, with TMDLs (regionalmass emissions strategies) in place or in progress on copper, nickel,mercury and PCBs for the Bay region, and for selenium, mercury, pes-ticides, boron and other contaminants in the Central Valley.

In the Bay region, the S.F. Regional Board began working ontougher new and redevelopment requirements to prevent runoff anderosion in 2001, the Brake Pad partnership focused on reducing cop-per in brake pads, California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle Program put sev-eral thousand electric vehicles on Bay Area highways – helping reducepollution from energy and transportation systems – and the EstuaryProject organized 10-12 erosion control workshops per year and dis-tributed 82,000 maps to boaters encouraging use of shoreline sewagepump outs. In the Central Valley, the Regional Board began re-evalu-ating a ten year old waiver exempting irrigation return flows andrunoff from waste discharge requirements and shepherded one of thefirst discharge requirements ever imposed on agriculture (GrasslandsBypass Channel project to reduce selenium-tainted runoff) into a sec-ond major phase. Also on the agricultural runoff front, U.S. EPA beganimplementing agreements with manufacturers of diazinon and chlor-pyrifos, two pesticides known to cause Bay-Delta aquatic toxicity, toreduce their use.

On the education front, the years since 1999 have sustained anincreasing number of programs educating teachers, students, thepublic, decisionmakers and others about the Estuary’s naturalresources. Conferences, newsletters, fact sheets, workshops and

hands-on restoration and clean up work all featured in this educationpush. On the science front, fostering coordination among the myri-ad research and monitoring efforts continued be an uphill battle, butall programs continued to work at it through CALFED, SFEI, IEP and anewly founded Bay Delta Science Consortium, which 20 agencies andresearch institutions pledged to support via an MOU in 2001.

Last but not least, the CCMP priority aimed at promulgating base-line inflow standards to restore the Estuary moved significantly aheadwith CALFED’s Record of Decision in 2000, which included require-ments for a maximum allowable ratio of export rates to water inflowrates, and requirements for the location and duration of the "x2" salini-ty standard. Likewise, the San Joaquin River Agreement of 2000 isexperimenting with inflow and export rates to optimize flows for needyfish while serving water users. Other flows for fish and the environ-ment are now coming from the CVPIA’s "B2" water (800,000 acre feetper year) and CALFED’s fledgling Environmental Water Account. Manyflow decisions are being better integrated across the Bay-Delta Estuarythrough the frameworks of CALFED and the CVPIA.

4

Action

Government & Private InitiativesPublic, private and cooperative plans, programs and good intentions

On-the-GroundImplementationExamples of specific, local completed or in-progress projects

Current Gaps & Roadblocks

Ideas & Opportunities for Further Progress


RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

WETLANDS

PRIORITY 1. EXPAND, RESTORE AND PROTECT BAY-DELTA WETLANDS.

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT 1.1

Prepare Regional WetlandsManagement Plan(s).

• A San Francisco Baylands Ecosystem HabitatGoals report was completed in March 1999 toprovide a scientific foundation for a regionalwetlands management plan, as well as guidancefor wetland restoration and mitigation projects.The Goals report has no regulatory authority, butidentifies the quantity, type and location of wet-lands the Bay needs to function as a healthyecosystem. In 2001, the Ecosystem Goals Projectreleased the Baylands Ecosystem Species andCommunity Profiles, which outlines the life his-tories and environmental requirements of keyplants, fish and wildlife.

• With the Goals complete, local agencies andwetlands interests decided that rather than creat-ing the regional wetlands management plancalled for in the CCMP, what was needed was aprocess for efficient and effective coordination ofimplementation of the Goals. Since 1999, theU.S.EPA and the S.F. Regional Board haveworked to map out this Goals implementationprogram. The proposed structure includes anexecutive council, a restoration project designreview group, a management group of senioragency staff, and a regional wetlands monitoringprogram. Project proponents held a publicworkshop in June 2000, but since then progresshas been slow (see also Wetlands Management2.1.3).

• CALFED’s latest draft Ecosystem RestorationProgram Plan, released in 2001, provides regional restoration planning targets and guidance for many different ecosystem components and habitats, including wetlands.

• Funding for restoration and/or mitigation proj-ects is limited.

• Restoration projects could have unanticipatedconsequences for sediment balance in theEstuary. The relationship between individualprojects and big picture processes needs to bestudied in more detail.

• The relationship between wetland restorationand the bioavailability of mercury in the Estuaryrequires more study.

• There has been little monitoring of restorationprojects or follow-up testing of assumptionsregarding the functioning of restored wetlands.

• Improve management and monitoring of exist-ing restoration sites, including tests of planningassumptions regarding ecosystem process values.

• The San Pablo Bay Watershed RestorationProgram established in 2000 provides a centralregional switchboard for North Bay restorationefforts. The Program was organized by theArmy Corps, the California Coastal Conservancy,and The Bay Institute. The program’s web sitedocuments existing ecological resources on SanPablo Bay, describes restoration opportunities,lists resources for funding and technical supportwith permits, provides links to other activitiesand programs, and offers over 300 references.(http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/sanpablobay)

96-9999-01

5

Action

RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

WETLANDS



WETLANDS MANAGEMENT 2.1.3

Establish an implementation program to achieve wetlands protection policies.

• The Bay Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan isundergoing a comprehensive update of itsmarsh, mudflat, and fish and wildlife findingsand policies in an effort to 1) better reflect cur-rent scientific understanding of the Bay as inter-connected habitats that form an ecologicalwhole, and 2) incorporate many of the recom-mendations of the Goals report into the BayPlan. The Bay Commission will consider pro-posed amendments to the Bay Plan in fall 2001.

• The Bay Area Wetlands Planning Grouplaunched a Wetlands Recovery Project, aimed atdeveloping a supportive structure for imple-menting the Ecosystem Goals. The project seeksto help wetlands project planners design betterprojects and navigate the permitting process. A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit ApplicationCenter was developed in 2000 by the S.F. EstuaryProject, Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG) and the Bay Area Wetlands PlanningGroup. Its purpose is to provide improved wet-land protection and coordination while stream-lining the permit process for wetland-relatedprojects. In 1999, Project participants developeda single permit application form and instructionsthat consolidate federal, state and local permitsfor applicants proposing construction, fill place-ment, public access impingement and develop-ment activities in or near aquatic environmentsor wetlands. They also conducted outreach tolocal governments, the private sector andresource conservation districts about how to useit. In 2000, the S.F. Estuary Project and ABAGestablished the Permit Center as an ombudsmanfor applicants involved in aquatic permittingwhich provides a clearinghouse for information,coordinates agency site visits, maintains a website and provides training for applicants.

• The Army Corps, the California CoastalConservancy and the Bay Institute are develop-ing a Program Plan that will allow San Pablo BayWatershed Restoration Program projects toreceive funding under the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act.

• The Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program isan interagency initiative launched in 2000 by S.F.Estuary Institute, the California CoastalConservancy, and U.S. EPA Region 9 to assessthe performance and effects of wetlands restora-tion projects through coordinated and standard-ized procedures for data collection, analysis andinterpretation. The WRMP has developed a pro-gram plan that matches indicators of wetlandconditions to specific management questions inthe context of conceptual models of how wet-lands work. The plan also includes protocols fordata collection for key indicators. The WRMPintends to assess ambient conditions of the wet-lands ecosystem, track the progress of majorrestoration projects and the implementation ofthe Wetland Habitat Goals.

• Inspired by the Goals Report, the NationalAudubon Society has established a BayRestoration Program in cooperation with BayArea chapters to educate the public about thevalue of Bay resources and to secure permanentfunding to acquire and restore baylands.

• The Marin Audubon Society and Marin BaylandsAdvocates have launched the “Save MarinBaylands Campaign" to acquire and permanentlyprotect tidal wetlands and diked baylands thatare in private ownership.

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife has begun a process tostudy the establishment of a Marin BaylandsNational Wildlife Refuge. This would broadenthe opportunities to acquire and protect threat-ened baylands and associated uplands.





• In 2001, 26 agencies, organizations andprivate companies signed on to the SanFrancisco Bay Joint Venture’s implementa-tion strategy for restoring the Estuary.Entitled Restoring the Estuary, the planseeks to protect, restore or enhance260,000 acres of baylands and creeks by2020 — 75% of the 50-year scientific blue-print for biological health laid out in theSan Francisco Baylands Ecosystem HabitatGoals report (released in March 1999). Thestrategy includes specific acreage goals foreach of five sub-regions, and identifiespartners and actions necessary to achievethe goals.

• Wetlands restoration is a significant part ofthe CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Plan.As of November 1999, CALFED had dedi-cated $254 million to 240 restoration proj-ects, of which habitat restoration account-ed for 41.3%. For FY 2000, the CALFEDPolicy group recommended spendingadditional $14.5 million on 23 projects.

• See also Appendix A

99-01

6

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

WETLANDS



Expand existing private, state andfederal financial and technicalassistance programs to individuallandowners.

• Dept. of Water Resources has increased grantfunding for its Urban Streams RestorationProgram (http://wwwdpla.water.ca.gov/environ-ment/habitat/stream/usrp.html). Private parties,non-profit organizations, and other governmentagencies may apply for funding to improve floodprotection and habitat values in their water-sheds. These projects are cataloged in UCDavis’ Natural Resource Projects Inventory data-base (http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/nrpi/).

• North American Wetlands Conservation Actfunding for public and private initiatives for wet-lands protection and enhancement has increasedfrom $15 million to $40 million in FY 2001.

• One of the major objectives of CALFED’sWatershed Program is to provide financial andtechnical assistance for local watershed steward-ship programs.

• The North Bay Wetlands and AgricultureProtection Program, a partnership between theBay Commission, four cities and four counties inthe North Bay, has succeeded in developing andtransferring new tools to local governments tobetter ensure the protection, restoration andenhancement of wetlands. A background reporton polluted runoff in the North Bay PlanningArea was developed for the program in April1999, and local governments have used many ofthe report’s recommendations to reduce or pre-vent polluted runoff and to protect wetlands.

• The Alameda County Resource ConservationDistrict is working with the county planningdepartment and Tri-Valley Vision 2010 to helplandowners improve the economic viability ofagricultural operations as a means of preservingopen space. The effort has resulted in severalworkshops designed to educate farmers andranchers about tools such as conservation ease-ments and habitat mitigation banks that can helpthem to realize revenues from their property innon-agricultural ways.

• SB 709, which went into effect in January 2000,severely restricted the ability of Regional Boardsto use Supplemental Environmental Programs inlieu of fines for water quality violations.

• UC Davis’ Information Center for theEnvironment maintains the Natural ResourceProjects Inventory (NRPI) database, which cata-logs habitat restoration/enhancement projectsthroughout the state. Completed CCMP-associ-ated habitat improvement projects should beadded to the NRPI database. The database mayalso act as an excellent reference for futureCCMP actions.(http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/nrpi/)

• As part of the effort to help landowners improvethe economic viability of their property whilepreserving open space, the Alameda RCD andothers are exploring the idea of a pooled bank ofconservation easements that could be used tomitigate for development elsewhere in theregion.

99-01 96-99

7

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

WETLANDS



Identify and convert/restore non-wetland areas to wetland orriparian-oriented wildlife habitat.Purchase non-wetland areas to create wetlands.

• Over 3,000 acres of Skagg's Island in the NorthBay has the potential to be restored from dikedbaylands to a mix of tidal marsh and seasonalwetlands. U.S. Fish & Wildlife is negotiating thepotential transfer of Skagg's Island from the U.S.Navy to the San Pablo Bay National WildlifeRefuge. Initial planning for the restoration hastaken place as part of the San Francisco AirportRunway Mitigation Study.

• In the Bay-Delta, at least 33,042 acres of wetlandsand riparian areas have been acquired and pro-tected since April 1999, more than triple theamount acquired in the last three year reportingperiod. Also since April 1999, 11,420 acres and1,320 linear feet have been restored or enhanced.Plans for 19 projects now on the books or inprogress will restore or enhance up to an addi-tional 25,502 acres and 36,020 linear feet of wet-land and riparian habitat. In the Bay region, 122acres of wetlands were filled and 204 acresgained as a result of 401 certification waivers anddevelopment mitigation projects since 1999. SeeAppendix A.

• Nearly 10,000 acres of former salt ponds andremnant sloughs and marshes in Napa andSonoma counties are part of a feasibility studyundertaken by the Army Corps, the CaliforniaCoastal Conservancy, and Cal Fish and Game.After salinity reduction of the salt ponds, theponds will be restored to a mosaic of wildlifehabitats.

• Construction on a re-created 18-acre tidal saltmarsh at the new Crissy Field waterfront park inSan Francisco’s Presidio was completed in late1999.

• Over the past several years the Santa Clara ValleyWater District has purchased several propertiesthat had been subjected to repeated floodingalong Coyote Creek in San Jose. The houses onthe properties were leveled and the site ispresently being replanted and regraded to allowfor better functioning of Coyote Creek. The proj-ect will be completed in October of 2001.

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the California WildlifeConservation Board completed the acquisition of1,600 acres of former wetlands at Bair Island andbegan plans for tidal restoration.

• At Tolay Creek in the San Pablo Bay NationalWildlife Refuge, a partnership between U.S. Fish& Wildlife, Cal Fish & Game, Save the Bay andothers, breached a levee to restore 435 acres ofdiked historic wetlands to tidal salt marsh inDecember 1998. Since then, bird and fish use,plant colonization, tidal action, and sedimentaccretion have all improved. Wave damage toadjoining levees caused some seepage to nearbyfarmlands, creating a need for on-going repairs,but overall the project has been successful.

• The U.S. Army Corps, the California CoastalConservancy, and the Bay Commission haveundertaken the restoration of 900 acres of tidaland seasonal wetlands at the former HamiltonArmy Airfield in Marin. The California CoastalConservancy has also acquired the adjacent1,613 acre Bel Marin Keys property in January of2001, and is working with the Army Corps on arestoration plan for the property.

• Disagreements over land prices and propertyclean-up are stalling some wetlands acquisitionand restoration projects.

• Trade-offs between different habitat values andrestoration objectives have not yet beenresolved.

• Assumptions about habitat values resulting fromrestoration have not been adequately tested.

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the California WildlifeConservation Board are in negotiations withCargill, Inc, over the acquisition of nearly 19,000acres of salt ponds for wetlands restoration. Ifsuccessful, the deal would pave the way for thelargest restoration effort ever attempted in theWest. Cargill has agreed to remove bittern, atoxic liquid, from 270 acres near Redwood City, aprocess that could take up to 12 years.

• In 2001 the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition andCLEAN South Bay asked the city councils ofMountain View and Sunnyvale to pass a resolu-tion calling for the cleanup and restoration ofMoffett Naval Air Field Site 25 to tidal marsh.Mountain View’s city council adopted the resolu-tion on July 31. Remediation of Site 25 is antici-pated in 2002.

99-01 96-99

8

Action





RE

PO

RT

CA

RD


WILDLIFE 2.2

Enhance the biodiversity within allpublicly owned or managed wetlands and other wildlife habitats as appropriate.

• In 2000, the Delta In-channel Island Work Groupreceived CALFED funding to construct biotechni-cal erosion control measures on three small,tidal islands in the central Delta. Delta in-chan-nel islands provide important habitat for anadro-mous fish and various at-risk plants, mammals,birds and reptiles, but are rapidly eroding fromboat wakes, wind-driven waves and out-of-bal-ance hydrodynamics in the system. Actual con-struction will begin in Fall 2001.

• The Bay Area Stream Fishes Project websitepresents fish survey data collected by the U.S.EPA during the years 1992 to 1998. It includesthe most comprehensive data set to datedescribing native and introduced fishes in BayArea streams. A total of 37 species observed at263 stations on 79 streams are presentedthrough the interactive website. The websiteshould be available to the public in the fall of2001. The next version of the site, projected forwinter 2001, will incorporate the first unit of thenew high-resolution National HydrographyDatabase, currently being developed by USGSand SFEI.

• CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program hasfunded a large number of projects designed toenhance habitat values for species.

• In 1999, managers at Antioch Dunes NationalWildlife Refuge adopted the use of controlledburns as a means of enhancing biodiversity atthe refuge. Analysis of data gathered since 1997indicated that three consecutive years of con-trolled burns is a very effective means of keep-ing down non-native species such as star thistleand encouraging the growth of native plantssuch as the endangered Antioch Dunes eveningprimrose, deer weed and bush lupine. In 2000,the refuge began working with the CaliforniaNative Plant Society to identify and protect rare— but not state or federally listed — plants pres-ent at the refuge.

• See also Appendix A and Aquatic Resources 2.3.

• Habitat management often focuses on specificthreatened or endangered species rather than onbiodiversity.

• The Dept. of Water Resources is consideringfunding a feasibility study of the removal ofSearsville Dam on San Francisquito Creek, whichcurrently blocks access to 40% of the creek’ssteelhead habitat.

WETLANDS


99-01 96-99

PRIORITY 1: WETLANDS SUMMARY

AVERAGE IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL: 1996-99: 25-50%

25-50%

9

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

AQUATIC RESOURCES 2.1

Develop, implement and enforcestringent regulations to control thedischarge of ship ballast waterwithin the Estuary and adjacentwaters.

• Regulatory agencies rely almost entirely on theship's statement on a ballast water report formto determine whether or not a mid-oceanexchange has been attempted and whether ornot it has been conducted effectively. Effectiveregulation will require either the implementationof more effective monitoring methods for ballastwater exchange, or the mandating of otherapproaches, such as the treatment of ballast dis-charges, which may be easier to monitor.However, at present, there are no effective treat-ment technologies.

• Cruise lines travelling between Mexico andCalifornia do not travel far enough offshore toconduct a mid-ocean exchange (200 miles out).An alternative exchange site, possibly just 60miles out near Baja, is still being developed.

• The Coast Guard is working with theSmithsonian Environmental Research Center todevelop effective tools for verifying ballast waterexchange. The International MaritimeOrganization is also exploring the establishmentof treatment standards at the international level.

• The California legislature authorized the StateLands Commission to charge fees of up to$1,000 per vessel voyage. Fees were to be usedto implement the law, including monitoring. TheSLC is currently charging fees of only $400 pervessel voyage.

• There are several existing federal laws thatappear to allow or require agencies to regulatethe discharge of exotic organisms in ballastwater. The most compelling and comprehensiveof these are laws intended to regulate the dis-charge of pollutants, especially the federal CleanWater Act, which prohibits the discharge of anypollutant by a point source into the navigablewaters of the United States without a dischargepermit, with both statute and case law indicatingthat exotic organisms fit the definition of a pollu-tant. These laws provide penalties for violatingrestrictions on the discharge of pollutants (e.g.up to $25,000 per day under the federal CleanWater Act, up to $25,000 per day and up to ayear in jail under the federal Rivers and HarborsAct). Government agencies have generally failedto apply these laws to ballast discharges,although in some cases the law may not justallow them but require them to do so.Government agencies could create a consider-ably greater incentive to comply with existingballast water law by announcing their intentionto apply these laws and penalties to violations ofthe law, and by doing so when the occasion aris-es. Similarly, there are several existing state lawsthat could be applied or are apparently requiredto be applied to ballast discharges, once thetemporary prohibition on applying them expireson January 1, 2004.

• Ballast water exchange may become mandatorywhen Congress reauthorizes the NationalInvasive Species Act in 2002.

• Uniform standards for the entire West Coastwould make things easier for shipping lines. Atthe moment, ballast water management is onlymandatory in Washington and California.Oregon issued a draft aquatic nuisance speciesmanagement plan in April 2001.

• The Coast Guard is in the process of developingstandards for the treatment of water dischargedfrom ships’ ballast tanks to reduce the threat ofintroducing foreign organisms to U.S. waters.

• The S.F. Regional Board has developed a work-plan entitled "Prevention of Exotic SpeciesIntroductions to the San Francisco Bay Estuary:A Total Maximum Daily Load," designed to pre-vent the introduction of non-natives throughballast water.

• See also Aquatic Resources 2.4.

• State law passed in 1999 (AB 703) requires mid-ocean ballast water exchange, or alternativetreatment that is at least as effective, in vesselscarrying ballast water into state waters afteroperating outside of the U.S. ExclusiveEconomic Zone (i.e. after operating more than200 miles off shore), with certain exceptions,until January 1, 2004. During this period, theState Board is to submit to the legislature anevaluation of alternative approaches for manag-ing ballast water to eliminate the discharge ofexotic species. During the term of this law, stateagencies are prohibited from imposing otherrequirements on ballast discharges that may beavailable under state law. Since the new lawwent into effect in January 2000, 90% of vesselsentering California ports have complied.According to an annual review, ships dischargedat total of 7.8 million metric tons of ballast waterin California ports in 2000. North coast inspec-tors discovered a total of 83 violations out of 330inspections, 71 of which were paperwork relatedand 12 of which were exchange violations. TheBay-Delta level of compliance ranged from highsof 90% in Stockton and 89% in Richmond to alow of 72% in Redwood City.

• An ordinance requiring mid-ocean ballast waterexchange for vessels calling at the Port ofOakland went into effect in the summer of 1999.Monitoring indicates that 10-15% of ships callingat the port in 2000 discharged ballast watertaken on in foreign ports, and 8% dischargedwater picked up on the West Coast.

EXOTIC SPECIES

PRIORITY 2. PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OF EXOTIC ORGANISMS, PLANTS AND ANIMALS INTO THE ESTUARY FROM ALL SOURCES.

99-01 96-99

10

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

EXOTIC SPECIES



Prohibit the intentional introduction of aquatic exoticspecies into the Estuary and itswatershed.

• Various federal laws (Clean Water Act) or statelaws (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,Cal Fish and Game Code §5650 and §6400) pro-hibit the release of exotic organisms intoCalifornia waters without a permit.

• CALFED has finalized its Non-Native InvasiveSpecies Strategic Plan. The Plan’s goals are: 1)preventing new introductions and establishmentof non-natives into the ecosystems of the SanFrancisco Bay-Delta, the Sacramento/SanJoaquin Rivers and their watersheds; 2) limitingthe spread or, when possible and appropriate,eliminating populations of non-natives throughmanagement; and 3) reducing the harmful eco-logical, economic, social and public healthimpacts resulting from infestation of non-nativesthrough appropriate management. CALFED isnow funding projects pursuant to the StrategicPlan.

• Federal law and state law prohibit the importa-tion into the U.S. or into California of a smallnumber of particular exotic aquatic organisms.These laws thus make use of a "dirty list"approach, in which organisms not on the listmay be imported unless they are demonstratedto be harmful. Many regulators, resource man-agers and scientists have recommended the useof a "clean list" approach, in which organismsnot on the list may not be imported unless theyare demonstrated to be safe.

99-01 96-99


Develop programs to educate thepublic about problems with exoticspecies and their incidental transport or introduction.

• The S.F. Estuary Institute is working withCALFED and other interests to produce onlineguidelines for local control of key invasive plantspecies of shallow water habitats. The intendedaudience for the guidelines includes marinaoperators and local landowners with riverfront,lakeshore or bayshore properties.

• Since 1999, the S.F. Estuary Project’s ESTUARYnewsletter has done invasive species articles onAtlantic cordgrass, purple loosestrife, Chinesemitten crabs, giant reed and common water-weed.

• The West Coast Ballast Outreach Project wasformed in 1999 to provide public education onballast water issues and information exchangebetween industry, researchers and regulators.The Project has since published newsletters andreports, created a web site offering up to datenews and links to other projects, and held sever-al major conferences and workshops, mostrecently a California conference on DevelopingBallast Water Solutions for the Pacific CoastMaritime Industry and workshops in London oninternational treatment standards. (ballast-out-reach-ucsgep.ucdavis.edu)

• Many groups, including the S.F. Estuary Project,are developing and distributing brochures andother educational materials on aspects of theexotics problem.

• Both the California Coastal Conservancy’sSpartina alterniflora eradication project andTeam Arundo Del Norte’s Arundo donax efforts(see AR 2.3) include public education compo-nents.

99-01 96-99

11

Action





RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

EXOTIC SPECIES


WILDLIFE 3.1

Implement predator control programs in areas where introduced predatorsare a constraint tomaintenance andrestoration of nativepopulations.

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife and other agencies are con-tinuing predator management activities in theSouth Bay to protect endangered species andmigratory birds from the non-native red fox,which first appeared in the Bay Area in the1980s.

99-01


PRIORITY 2: EXOTIC SPECIES SUMMARY


15-40%


Control problem aquatic speciesalready in the Estuary.

• In early 2000, the California Coastal Conservancybegan coordinating an eradication project to pre-vent the spread of Atlantic cordgrass (Spartinaalterniflora) into the North Bay, the Delta andnewly restored tidal marshes. The project hascompleted its mapping efforts and is drafting amanagement plan, which is expected by winter2002 together with a draft EIR/EIS. However,there are a number of difficult conservationissues to be addressed in deciding whether toproceed with an eradication effort, and in devel-oping and effectively implementing the plan if itis decided to attempt it. Getting there will requirea much greater involvement by regulatory andresource management agencies, environmentalorganizations and the general public.

• Team Arundo Del Norte, a coalition of govern-ment managers, scientists and environmental-ists, has been battling giant reed (Arundo donax)since 1996. The team has conducted eradicationefforts on the Russian River and other areas,including Contra Costa County. In 2000, CALFEDprovided Team Arundo del Norte with $818,000to coordinate and oversee regional Arundo erad-ication projects. Several projects are located inthe S.F. Bay region and are sponsored by localwatershed groups. Project information will beweb-based including GIS integration(http://ceres.ca.gov/tadn/eradproject/).

• California State University, Chico, received agrant from CALFED to identify areas infested byArundo donax in Upper Sacramento River tribu-taries, implement an outreach and educationprogram for landowners whose riparian habitatsare affected, and assist them in eradicationefforts.

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife is developing a monitoringprogram for the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheirsinensis), including a reporting system for mittencrab collections and sightings. Since 1998, whenan exploding mitten crab population cloggedfish salvage facilities and engineers began work-ing on an enormous new screen called "crabzil-la," the numbers of these invaders havedecreased dramatically. Though fish facilitiesare still trapping mitten crabs, the crabs currentprimary impact seems to be stealing bait fromsport anglers. (http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/mitt-tencrab/sighting).

• A three year project to survey and extinguish theaquatic pest plant purple loosestrife (Lythrumsalicaria) began in 2000. To date, surveys revealthat the “purple plague” invasion is still control-lable. Since then, the California Department ofFood and Agriculture has been developingaction plans for eradication and education pro-grams for the public.

• Public agencies still manage exotic species suchas striped bass for sport fishing purposes.

• Often "problem" species are only identified afterthey begin to affect the food web.

• The practice of spraying waterways with pesti-cides to reduce clogging by water hyacinths waschallenged by DeltaKeeper in 2000, who suedthe Department of Boating and Waterways, say-ing they needed a permit to spray. Since then,the department, water quality regulators andenvironmentalists have been negotiating howand whether to incorporate additional regulatoryhoops and monitoring of potential aquaticecosystem impacts into the spraying program.

• Experience from Willapa Bay (Washington) on Spartina control suggests multi-agency cooperation, deployment of amphibious mowingmachines, biological controls (Prokalisia margin-alia is a natural predator of Spartina), and strate-gies to prevent Spartina infestations (preventionof "seed set") show promise to check and possi-bly reverse the progress of Spartina in westernPacific estuaries. Remote sensing and “on-the-ground” monitoring, combined with GIS-sup-ported strategic planning efforts also hold prom-ise for increasing the effectiveness of eradicationcampaigns.

• To protect water quality and species diversity,the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition promotesIntegrated Pest Management approaches, espe-cially monitoring, preventive measures, andmechanical removal (mowing), to control ofinvasive Spartina.

99-01 96-99

12

Action





RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

LAND USE 1.1

Local General Plans should incorporate watershed protectionplans to protect wetlands andstream environments and reducepollutants in runoff.

• The City of San Jose’s General Plan has includeda Sustainable Cities Major Policy Strategy sincethe 1980s. The policy defines a "sustainable city"as one designed, constructed, and operated tominimize waste, efficiently use its naturalresources and to manage and conserve them forthe use of present and future generations. Thepolicy commits San Jose to encourage and par-ticipate in cooperative/regional efforts intendedto improve the quality of air and water and toconserve land, soil, water, energy and ecosys-tems such as the Bay, forests, riparian corridors,fisheries and grasslands.

• In the aftermath of 1998’s severe flooding, fiveagencies (San Mateo County Flood Control,Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the citiesof Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park)formed the San Francisquito Creek Joint PowersAuthority to preserve and protect 14 miles of thecreek and 45 square miles of its watershed.

• See also Pollution Prevention 2.4.

• The City of Oakland has made environmentalprotection of its 15 creeks a priority, by imple-menting a Watershed Improvement Program,which consists of educational, outreach, and vol-unteer programs, restoration and enhancementprojects on their creeks, and a creek protectionordinance.

• Napa County is scheduled to develop aProgrammatic Environmental Impact Report aspart of its proposed revisions to the hillside pro-tection ordinance, with potentially far-reachingmeasures for riparian corridor protection, ero-sion and sedimentation reductions from agricul-tural land use practices, and habitat preserva-tion.

• Several Bay Area cities and counties havepassed local growth management policies inrecent years, which may help protect watershedsfrom development. Meanwhile, the Bay AreaAlliance for Sustainable Development, and thefive-agency Bay Area Smart Growth Strategy,are also working on integrating economy, envi-ronment and equity into regional and local landuse management.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

PRIORITY 3. PROMOTE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ESTUARY.


99-01 96-99

13

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

PRIORITY 3. PROMOTE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ESTUARY.

LAND USE 3.1

Prepare and implement WatershedManagement Plans that includethe following complementary elements: 1) wetlands protection;2) stream environment protection;and 3) reduction of pollutants inrunoff.

• S.F. Bay Joint Venture and its partners areencouraging all Bay Area counties to pass reso-lutions endorsing the goals and objectives con-tained in its implementation strategy, Restoringthe Estuary (see Wetlands 2.1.3). The City andCounty of San Francisco did so in October 2000,and Marin and Sonoma counties have indicatedthat they will as well. Municipalities will then besolicited for their endorsements of the strategy.

• The Sacramento Water Forum developed aMemorandum of Understanding and an EIR on aplan to protect the Lower American River water-shed while providing a reliable and safe watersupply for the region's economic health andplanned development. The result of six years ofcooperative research and negotiation on the partof Sacramento area business, environmental,agricultural, public government and water inter-ests, the plan details how the region will dealwith key issues such as groundwater manage-ment, water diversions, dry year water supplies,water conservation, and protection of the LowerAmerican River.

• CALFED’s Watershed Program supports localand regional activities that improve the ability ofthe watershed to function as a contributor to thehealth of the entire Bay-Delta system. InNovember 1999, the CALFED Policy Group rec-ommended funding eight watershed planningprojects, including the Colusa Basin, LowerMokulemne, Clear Creek, Yuba River, AmericanRiver and Napa River Watersheds.

• The Watershed Resources Assessment Centerreceived funding to assist grassroots organiza-tions in developing scientifically valid monitoringand assessment programs to help them achievetheir watershed goals and to create partnershipswith local and state agencies.

• $2.5 million in federal Water ResourcesDevelopment Act funding has been approved forthe San Pablo Bay Watershed and the NapaRiver Watershed planning and restoration proj-ects.

• The City of San Jose completed a RiparianRestoration Pilot Project (RRPP) in March 2001funded through a State Water Resources ControlBoard 319 (h) grant. The project was conductedon a targeted riparian habitat to test and refinethe draft City of San Jose’s Riparian RestorationAction Plan (RRAP). The RRAP was developedwith widespread community input and approvedby City Council in January 2001. The segmentchosen for restoration is located on CoyoteCreek, directly adjacent to the proposed WilliamStreet Park, in an urban neighborhood of SanJose. The project met the goal of native plantre-vegetation and community outreach. The Cityenvisions that the final RRAP will be a transfer-able blueprint for urban riparian restoration andwatershed management planning efforts to helpimprove the entire San Francisco Bay/Delta sys-tem.

• The Santa Clara Basin Watershed ManagementInitiative published a Watershed CharacteristicsReport in 2000 and is currently preparing anassessment focused on three sub-basin water-sheds, and developing action items for theSCBWM Plan, due in 2004.

• The Alameda County Resource ConservationDistrict is managing several watershed manage-ment programs, including the Southern AlamedaCreek Project and the San Lorenzo CreekWatershed Project.

• In Contra Costa County, the Alhambra CreekWatershed Planning Group published theAlhambra Creek Watershed Management Plan —A User's Manual and its accompanying appen-dices in April 2001. The plan includes a generaldescription of the watershed, detailed goals andobjectives, technical background material, andguidance for landowners who wish to imple-ment resource conservation. The PlanningGroup included a diversity of watershed stake-holders, including ranchers, farmers, East BayRegional Park District staff, National Park Servicestaff, the Cattlemen's Association, EnvironmentalAlliance, Urban Creeks Council, MartinezChamber of Commerce, the Contra CostaResource Conservation District, teachers, andmany other participants listed in the plan.

• State funding for watershed assessments is lim-ited.

• The S.F. Estuary Institute has developed fieldreconnaissance techniques in eight small water-sheds that will enable managers to identify themost promising on- and off-site restoration activ-ities.

• The S.F. Estuary Institute has pioneered theapplication of Historical Ecology projects in wet-land and watershed goal-setting by involvingcommunity members at the local level in helpingcompile historical records and interpret rigorous-ly documented material with regard to land-scape features and associated habitats.

• Construction permits and stream protectionrequirements could be better coordinated.

99-01 96-99

PRIORITY 3: WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SUMMARY


12-37%

LAND USE 2.1

Regional agencies should assist inidentifying and developing consistent policies that provide anintegrated framework for localgovernments to protect theresources of the Estuary.

• The Santa Clara Valley Water District's "EndsPolicies" guide all of the district’s activities. Thepolicies state that the "ends" of all district activitiesshould have the intended result of a healthy andsafe environment for residents and visitors and anenhanced quality of life in Santa Clara Countyincluding a reliable supply of clean drinking waterand reduced potential for flood damages. The poli-cies also state that watersheds, streams and thenatural resources therein should be protected (andwhen appropriate enhanced or restored) and thatthere should be additional open space, trails andparks along creeks and in the watersheds "whenreasonable and appropriate."

• The S.F. Bay Commission has completed its two-year Public Access and Wildlife CompatibilityPolicy Development Project. The project resultedin revisions to the S.F. Bay Commission’s BayPlan public access findings and policies. Therevisions better reflect current knowledge on theinteractions of public access and wildlife, andprovide more detailed guidance on how to pro-vide for maximum feasible public access to andalong the Bay while protecting wildlife.

• The City of San Jose's Riparian Corridor Policydirects that, wherever feasible, all developmenthave a 100 foot riparian buffer area. Its RiparianRestoration Action Plan was developed to helpdevelopers protect, restore or mitigate riparianareas impacted by planned development.

• The Guadalupe Collaborative was a multipartystakeholder process to design a downtown SanJose flood control project that was more envi-ronmentally friendly.

• The Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat CollaborativeEffort is a multiparty stakeholder effort coordi-nating the Santa Clara Valley Water District’soperations to support cold water fisheries onStevens Creek, Coyote Creek and the GuadalupeRiver.

• San Francisco International Airport has proposedconstruction of new runways which could fill upto 900 acres of the Bay, with potential direct (filland borrow) impacts and regional impactsresulting from changes in Bay circulation pat-terns.

14

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

ECONOMIC INCENTIVES

PRIORITY 4. CREATE INCENTIVES THAT ENCOURAGE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LANDOWNERS AND COMMUNITIES TO PROTECT AND RESTORE THE ESTUARY.

LAND USE 1.3

Integrate protection of the Estuarywith other state land use-relatedinitiatives.

• The state’s Delta Protection Commission hasworked successfully in recent years to integrateCCMP spawned efforts to restore Delta in-chan-nel islands (see Wildlife 2.2) into newer planningprocesses including CALFED’s EcosystemRestoration Program. It has also been encourag-ing Cal Fish & Game to undertake in-channelisland restoration work onto some state-ownedproperties.

• The Resource Agency's California ContinuingResource Investment Strategy Project, launchedin 2000, aims to identify and prioritize largeareas, such as river basins, that support any offive key conservation values: aquatic and terres-trial biodiversity, working landscapes (crop, for-est or range lands), watershed values, lands forrecreation and educational facilities in naturalareas and urban open space. The project isdeveloping maps, data sets and decision-makingtools to help make the case for where stateinvestment in conservation should be made, aswell as help local stakeholders decide which on-the-ground projects or land acquisitions makethe most sense in light of statewide conservationpriorities.

• SB 221, which would prohibit a city or countyfrom approving a subdivision of 200 units ormore unless the developer can prove that therewill be adequate water to supply the tract for atleast 20 years, has passed the state Senate andis under consideration in the Assembly.

• Bay-Delta agencies could learn lessons from theLos Angeles TREES project, kicked off by theenvironmental group Treepeople in 1997 andcontinuing to grow. Trans-Agency Resources forEnvironmental and Economic Sustainabilityseeks to overcome often fragmented agency-by-agency approach to environmental problemsand simultaneously address stormwater runoff,water conservation, groundwater, flood control,air quality, urban forestry and energy conserva-tion. The project has since developed a series ofBest Management Practices (BMPs) for industrialsites, commercial buildings, schools, apartmentsand single family homes, published them in aPlanbook, drafted an Implementation Plan thatproposes public policy and financial strategiesthat can facilitate the widespread use of theBMPs, and created an interactive computer CostBenefit Model for policymakers. (www.treepeo-ple.org/trees/index.htm)

99-01

99-01

LAND USE 5.3

Investigate and createmarket-based incentives that promote active participation by theprivate sector in cooperativeefforts to implement goals for protection and restoration of the Estuary.

• As part of the effort to help landowners improvethe economic viability of their property whilepreserving open space, the Alameda RCD andothers are exploring the idea of a pooled bank ofconservation easements that could be used tomitigate for development elsewhere in theregion.

• The use of mitigation banks is highly controver-sial.

15

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

ECONOMIC INCENTIVES

PRIORITY 4. CREATE INCENTIVES THAT ENCOURAGE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LANDOWNERS AND COMMUNITIES TO PROTECT AND RESTORE THE ESTUARY.

LAND USE 5.1

Create economic incentives thatencourage local governments totake action to implement measuresto protect and restore the Estuary.

• SF Bay Joint Venture and members of its CreeksCommittee are exploring legislation to create aregional network of watershed/riparian stationsthrough the community college system and via aformal partnership of the State Board and theState Department of Education.

• Sediment TMDLs are generating incentives forlocal government and private entities to applywatershed assessment techniques in evaluatingthe best options for sediment reductions toimpaired water bodies.

LAND USE 5.2

Develop new funding mechanismsto pay for plans, physical improvements and programadministration to protect theresources of the Estuary.

• Congressional authorization of funds under theWater Resources Development Act is enablingthe U.S. Army Corps to become a federal partnerwith local entities in preparing watershed man-agement plans and implementing restorationpriorities.

• CALFED is providing substantial new funding forBay-Delta restoration and protection.

• AB 104, which authorizes a motor vehicle regis-tration fee to fund restoration projects that miti-gate for the adverse water quality impacts ofmotor vehicles and streets and highways, ispending before the state legislature.

99-01 96-99

99-01

99-01

PRIORITY 4: ECONOMIC INCENTIVES SUMMARY


0-5%

16

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

RUNOFF

PRIORITY 5. REDUCE POLLUTION OF THE ESTUARY FROM URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF AND OTHER NON-POINT SOURCES.

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND REDUCTION 2.1

Pursue a mass emissions strategy(TMDLs) to reduce pollutant discharges into the Estuary frompoint and non-point sources and toaddress the accumulation of pollu-tants in estuarine organisms andsediments.

• The Central Valley Regional Board is developingTMDLs for all 303(d) listed water bodies for mer-cury, pesticides, boron, selenium, salinity anddissolved oxygen. The plans are expected to becomplete by the end of 2002.

• The S.F. Regional Board is developing TMDLs forpollutants for all 303(d) listed water bodies, andhas developed a draft TMDL for mercury.

• The S.F. Regional Board, S.F. Estuary Instituteand the other partners involved in the RegionalMonitoring Program for Trace Substances arecontributing to the scientific foundation of TMDLdevelopment through the design of a loadingsmonitoring component, impairment assessment,and evaluation of additional pollution controlmeasures.

• The RMP partners are developing a surveillanceprogram to proactively identify substances ofpotential concern.

• The Santa Clara Basin Watershed ManagementInitiative resolved the copper and nickel TMDLfor the San Francisco Bay south of theDumbarton Bridge with the adoption of pollutionprevention action plans, site-specific objectivesand a monitoring plan. The S.F. Regional Boardamended South Bay NPDES permits to incorpo-rate copper and nickel TMDL stakeholder out-comes.

• The Watershed Management Initiative is currently developing a Mercury TMDL for theGuadalupe River and its affected tributaries. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has fundedthe initial studies to develop the workplans.

• The Watershed Management Initiative is currently developing a plan for pre-TMDL sediment studies on San Francisquito Creek.

• Some problems may relate to channel configura-tion rather than loading; TMDLs do not allowwater quality problems to be solved using non-loading methods.


Improve the management andcontrol of urban runoff from publicand private sources.

• The S.F. Bay Commission, working closely withthe S.F. Bay Regional Board and other local,state and federal agencies with water qualityauthority and expertise, in accordance with adirective from the Resources Agency, has ana-lyzed the S.F. Bay Commission’s existing pollut-ed runoff controls and developed a draft five-year plan for controlling polluted runoff in theBay.

• The S.F. Regional Board began promoting newand redevelopment requirements in 2001, aspart of the reissuance of Santa Clara County'sfive year stormwater discharge permit (NPDES)and a recent statewide mandate to strengthenstormwater management through SUSMPs(standardized urban stormwater mitigationplans). The new requirements get more specificabout how much runoff must be captured, fil-tered (through soils, vegetation or actual fabricfilters) or treated on a project site before it canflow into creeks, bays and ultimately the ocean.They raise the bar for performance and compli-ance with stormwater permits, and force munici-palities to integrate stormwater managementmore fully into city infrastructure and proce-dures. Several other Bay Area counties, includ-ing Alameda, will become subject to the newprovisions when their NPDES permits come upfor renewal in the coming years. See also PublicInvolvement and Education 2.5.

• State and regional urban runoff managementefforts begun before 1999 continue to be ineffect.

99-01 96-99

99-01 96-99

17

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

RUNOFF



Develop control measures toreduce pollutant loadings fromenergy and transportation systems.

• The Brake Pad Partnership, a cooperative effortinvolving international vehicle brake manufactur-ers, government agencies, and environmentalgroups, is working to understand and minimizethe impacts of vehicle brakes on surface waters,focusing first on copper, using South SanFrancisco Bay as a model. Under thePartnership, manufacturers have initiated anannual report of copper use and have used anew standard method for generation of brakewear debris to provide material that has beenphysically and chemically characterized. ThePartnership is now developing an Action Plan tocreate methods to evaluate the fate, transport,and environmental importance of pollutants inbrake wear debris.

• Caltrans District 4 is funding the S.F. EstuaryProject's development of a manual that providesconcrete design examples of how highway land-scaping and drainage design can be coordinatedto develop facilities that treat highway runoff.

• California's Zero Emissions Vehicle Program,supplemented by the efforts of the Bay Area AirQuality Management District and many SanFrancisco Bay area local governments, put sever-al thousand electric vehicles on Bay Area high-ways in 1999 and 2000. As substitutes for gaso-line or diesel vehicles, electric vehicles reducereleases of water pollutants from operations(tailpipe emissions are eliminated, reducing airemissions of water pollutants by 90% or more)and from maintenance (electric motors do notuse motor oil).

• Although the Brake Pad Partnership hasinformed all brake manufacturers about environ-mental concerns in brake design and manufac-turers have initiated development of low-copperbrake pad formulations, copper use in originalequipment brake pads went up 40% between1998 and 1999 (2000 results will be available inOctober 2001).

• The lack of regional or local control over pollu-tants released from consumer products like vehi-cles and vehicle components is a very significantbarrier to preventing pollutant releases fromvehicles.

• The state legislature is currently considering AB104, which authorizes a motor vehicle registra-tion fee to fund restoration projects that mitigatefor the adverse water quality impacts of motorvehicles and streets and highways.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION 2.5

Increase long-term educationalprograms designed to prevent pollution of the Estuary’s ecosystem.

• The S.F. Estuary Project has organized 10-12 ero-sion workshops per year for developers, buildersand local governments since 1999 whose pur-pose is to educate participants about construc-tion site planning BMPs that can help them pre-vent erosion and sediment problems andimprove water quality. The workshops are acooperative project with the S.F. Regional Boardand Friends of the Estuary. The project has alsoproduced videos (Spanish and English), how tomanuals and a certification program for thoseattending workshops.

• The S.F. Estuary Project has expanded its workwith the state Dept. of Boating and Waterwaysto prevent pollution by building environmentalawareness among recreational boaters andencouraging their use of sewage pump out sta-tions. Since 1999, the boater education programhas printed 82,000 maps of Bay and Delta shore-line pump out and recycling facilities and distrib-uted them to the boating community via boatshows, marinas and boat supply stores.

• The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff PollutionPrevention Program is funding a WatershedEducation and Outreach Program. That effort isdesigned to educate the public on the Watershedand encourage behavior to protect it.

• Many municipalities, organizations, and waste-water dischargers continue to expand pollutionawareness programs.

• See Land Use 4.1.

99-01 96-99

99-01 96-99

18

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

RUNOFF


POLLUTION PREVENTION ANDREDUCTION 2.6

Improve the management andcontrol of agricultural sources oftoxic substances.

• The Ninth District Court of Appeals requirednon-agricultural dischargers of pesticides toapply for NPDES permits under Section 402 ofthe CWA. The State Board is currently develop-ing a state-wide permit and associated monitor-ing, assessment, and reporting requirements.This may result in steps to prevent pesticidesused in the control of aquatic nuisance species,vector abatement, and other applications fromimpacting non-target aquatic species.

• The Central Valley Regional Board directed itsstaff in 2001 to continue to re-evaluate a 1982waiver exempting irrigation return flows andstormwater runoff from waste discharge require-ments under water quality law. Environmentalgroups including DeltaKeeper petitioned theBoard to immediately revoke the waiver in late2000, claiming that irrigation return waters andstormwater from irrigated lands contain pesti-cides, nutrients and sediments that adverselyimpact beneficial uses of the state's waters.Though the Board denied their petition in 2001,it directed staff to extend water quality monitor-ing efforts to better assess impacts and furtherevaluate waiver conditions in preparation formaking a recommendation about whether thewaiver should be renewed when it sunsets in2003.

• In 2001, the Central Valley Regional Boardapproved waste discharge requirements forPhase II of a 1996 project using the GrasslandsBypass Channel (part of the San Luis Drain) totransport selenium-laced agricultural drainagefrom 97, 400 acres of farmland in the Grasslandswatershed around area wetlands and toward theSan Joaquin River. In order to use the channelthrough 2009, local water and irrigation districtsmust meet monthly and annual load limits ontheir selenium discharges, and undertake controlmeasures to reduce loads. This is one of the firstwaste discharge requirements ever imposed onagricultural drainage in California. Based on thedrainers’ basic compliance with these load limitsand requirements during Phase I of the Project,and on an EIR for long-term use of the bypasscompleted in 2001, the Board recently approvedPhase II of the project which will extend through2009. Phase II involves continued load limits andselenium reduction efforts.

• In 2001, the Central Valley Regional Board com-pleted a Selenium Total Maximum Daily Load forthe Lower San Joaquin River and submitted it tothe U.S. EPA for consideration of approval.

• Pesticide formulations that minimize runoffshould be developed and used preferentially.Contained formulations, like baits and blocks,are widely available for certain applications.Formulations could be developed to use "sticker"and other formulating agents that reduce runoffof pesticides; such pesticides could replace for-mulations like the popular wettable powders thathave significant potential runoff in rain water.

• CALFED’s 2000 Record of Decision includes sup-port for research into sources of pesticides andtrace metals and best management practices toreduce their entry into the watershed via bothurban and agricultural runoff.

• U.S. EPA has begun implementation of agree-ments with manufacturers of diazinon and chlor-pyrifos that will reduce use of these two pesti-cides in agriculture. It is unknown whether theagreements will reduce use enough to eliminatethe toxicity in the Sacramento River and theDelta associated with the agricultural uses ofthese two pesticides.

• Horse Keeping: A Guide to Land Managementfor Clean Water is a manual of BestManagement Practices being produced by theCouncil of Bay Area Resource ConservationDistricts. The focus is on conservation practicesthat can be used at horse facilities for siteimprovement and manure management. Inaddition, the brochure Horse Owners Guide toWater Quality Protection and Fact Sheets havebeen developed.

• The Council of Bay Area Resource ConservationDistricts, working with local ResourceConservation Districts in Alameda, Contra Costa,San Mateo, Marin and Sonoma, have demon-stration sites that showcase horse facilityimprovements for erosion control and manuremanagement. Primary focus is outreach andeducation to the horse community on conserva-tion practices at horse facilities to improve waterquality.

• The Veale and Byron Tract Working Group isinvestigating ways to reduce ag and stormwaterdrainage from the two tracts and the Knightsenarea.

99-01

PRIORITY 5: WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SUMMARY


15-40%


Build awareness, interest and support in the general public andamong decision-makers for theCCMP’s goals and action plans.

• Educating local, state and national decision mak-ers about CCMP implementation, the value ofestuaries and the need to protect them is onegoal of the Association of National EstuaryProgram’s Citizen Action Committee, in whichthe S.F. Estuary Project and Friends of theEstuary participate.

• The S.F. Estuary Institute has designed theEcoAtlas Information System as a way for thepublic and all other interests to access peer-reviewed scientific data and maps about ecologi-cal conditions in the Bay Area. The EAIS fea-tures map-based and text-based search enginesfor validated information about restoration proj-ects, water and sediment quality, and wildlife. Ademonstration of the EAIS will be completed bymid-summer 2001.

• The State of the Estuary Conference, organizedevery two to three years, educates the public,interest groups, agencies and the media aboutthe health of the Estuary and provides up-to-dateinformation about CCMP implementation. Thenext conference is planned for October 2001.

• ESTUARY newsletter is mailed bi-monthly tomore than 3,000 decision-makers, scientists andinterested members of the public.

• S.F. Estuary Project and Friends of the Estuary co-sponsor and regularly participate in fairs, festivalsand other events to distribute information andeducate the public about CCMP implementation.

• S.F. Estuary Project regularly supplies the mediawith background information on the CCMP, itsgoals and implementation activities.

• A public workshop was held on August 3, 2001to evaluate CCMP progress and priority actions.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION 1.2 AND 1.3

Provide and encourage opportuni-ties for direct citizen involvementin following and implementing theCCMP and making any necessaryrevisions to it.

• Dozens of community groups, including Friendsof Sausal Creek and Friends of San LeandroCreek, have launched ambitious grassrootsrestoration and outreach projects that provideopportunities for direct citizen involvement inprotecting and restoring the Estuary.

• The S.F. Estuary Institute has designed theEcoAtlas Information System as a way for thepublic and all other interests to access peer-reviewed scientific data and maps about ecologi-cal conditions in the Bay Area. (See 1.1 above)

• Ongoing meetings and activities of Friends ofthe S.F. Estuary, a non-profit, citizen-basedorganization dedicated to promoting and moni-toring implementation of the CCMP.

• Geographic subcommittees of the CCMPImplementation Committee hold regular meet-ings open to the public.

19

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

ESTUARY EDUCATION

PRIORITY 6. STRENGTHEN PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT THE ESTUARY’S NATURAL RESOURCES.

99-01 96-99

99-01 96-99

20

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

ESTUARY EDUCATION


99-

01

96-

99


Ensure provisions for a central collection and distribution point(clearinghouse) for communicationand coordination of all informationconcerning CCMP issues and theEstuary.

• The S.F. Bay Joint Venture website(www.sfbayjv.org) has a “Project Planning Tools"page, a "Grants Available" page and a projectdatabase page that lists habitat projects by sub-region and placement on the map of habitatprojects, as well as a project description, acreageand contact person. The habitat projects mapand database provide outreach tools to morethan 200 partners.

• ESTUARY newsletter solicits stories from andcovers the activities of more than 100 differentagencies, interest groups, scientific and technicalresearch programs and community groups.

• A central S.F. Estuary Project public outreachoffice writes and distributes thousands of factsheets, newsletters, brochures, maps and how-to-materials. This information is also availableon the Estuary Project’s Web site.

21

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

ESTUARY EDUCATION


LAND USE 4.1

Educate the public about howhuman actions affect the Estuary.

• Friends of the Estuary offers custom-designededucation programs to Bay Area schools. Projectsinclude classroom and field lessons, teacher train-ing and curriculum development. Seven schoolsparticipated in these programs between 1999-2001.

• The Water Education Foundation continues to pro-duce fact sheets, maps, water facility tours and anewsletter about California and Central Valleywater issues.

• The Aquatic Institute's Kids in Creek, Kids inMarshes, Kids in Gardens, and Watching OurWatersheds programs train teachers, and throughthem students and the general public, about theEstuary’s natural resources and nonpoint sourcepollution. More than 1,000 educators have partici-pated in these programs and more than 50,000students have participated in creek explorationand restoration programs. Exploring the Estuary,a computer-based program on the Bay and Delta,runs on permanent exhibit in five museums andvisitors centers around the Bay, and is used byseveral hundred educators to teach about Bay-Delta ecology.

• The City of San Jose is piloting a Watershed GrantProgram which provides grant funding for projectsthat protect the environment and/or educate aboutthe environment. They also have grants for partic-ipation in the SCVWMI and a program wherebyteachers can get small grants for classroom pro-grams. Recipients to date include the SiliconValley Toxics Coalition, the San Francisco Bay BirdObservatory, and several school programs.

• The S.F. Estuary Institute is providing technicaltransfer to local agencies, community groups andResource Conservation Districts with emphasis onwatershed assessment methodologies to increasebasic understanding of watershed processes andapplication of this knowledge in identifyingrestoration opportunities.

• The Santa Clara County Pollution PreventionUrban Runoff Management Program offersWatershed Grants to programs that educate orimprove the watershed. Recipients include theDon Edwards Refuge’s Alviso Education Center.

• San Francisco Bay Savers, a program conductedby the Alameda County Resource ConservationDistrict with funding from the AlamedaCountywide Clean Water Program, educates 4thgraders about protecting watersheds, creeks andthe Bay. The program is currently offered in manycounty classrooms each year.

• The Santa Clara Valley Water District initiated apilot program in 2001 to provide grants of up to$25,000 to community-based organizations to sup-port watershed stewardship.

• Numerous Bay Area ports, marinas, cities andcounties have initiated projects to educate thepublic about how human actions affect theEstuary.

• Friends of the Estuary has no secure source oflong-term funding for operating support.

• The Environmental Justice Coalition for waterconvened an advisory body to guide preparationof an environmental justice blueprint for CALFEDin 2001. CALFED’s environmental justice work-group will be formed in 2002.

99-01 96-99

PRIORITY 6: ESTUARY EDUCATION SUMMARY


37-62%

22

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

RESEARCH AND MONITORING 2.1

Develop and implement theRegional Monitoring Strategy,which will integrate and expand onexisting efforts, and eventually bepart of a comprehensive RegionalMonitoring Program.

• The S.F. Estuary Institute, the California CoastalConservancy and U.S. EPA Region 9 have initiat-ed the Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program(see Wetlands Management 2.1.3).

• The S.F. Estuary Institute created the Bay AreaWatershed Science Approach that calls for a net-work of local "Observation Watersheds" andcommunity-based "Watershed Stations" to moni-tor conditions in representative watersheds,develop watershed assessment tools, calibrateand validate simulation models, train monitoringpersonnel, and engage the public in watershedmanagement through volunteer monitoring. TheWSA includes innovative methods to assesslong-term effects of people and nature on water-shed conditions based upon a short-series ofempirical observations of water supply and sedi-ment sources. The S.F. Estuary Institute workedwith the Contra Costa Clean Water Program toconduct a field test of these methods for WildcatCreek, and has begun to work with other part-ners to apply the methods to other watershedsin the Bay Area. Much of the WSA is reflected inthe Regional Monitoring Assessment Strategy ofthe S.F. Board and the methods of the WSA arebeing used in sediment TMDL studies in NorthBay.

• There has been no formal funding commitmentfor a regional monitoring strategy.

REGIONAL MONITORING

PRIORITY 7.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT 1.1

Refine and coordinate existingmonitoring programs to 1) betterevaluate ecosystem responses toimmediate, phased, and long-termwater quality and flow standards;2) more fully characterize ecosystem processes and properties; and 3) enhance predictive capabilities of ecosystem models.

• The Bay-Delta Science Consortium was launchedvia Memorandums of Understanding signed by20 different agencies and research institutions in2001. The purpose of the consortium is to pro-vide a switchboard for all Bay-Delta science, andweb links between the myriad data collectionand research programs serving CALFED and itsmember agencies. The consortium is part ofCALFED’s new effort to create an interdiscipli-nary, multi-agency approach to science andmonitoring. Initial tasks for the consortiuminclude hiring an executive director; describingall existing research institutions, facilities andequipment; identifying barriers to the sharing ofthese resources; developing master contractsbetween institutions to facilitate coordination;and creating Post-doc CALFED fellowships tofacilitate analysis of existing data sets.

• S.F. Estuary Institute continues to play a centralrole in coordination of monitoring programs inthe Bay Area. Most recently, S.F. EstuaryInstitute has accepted technical and/or advisoryroles in the U.S. EPA EMAP program for S.F. Bay;the state Surface Waters Ambient MonitoringProgram; the CALFED Science Consortium; theBay-Delta Information System; three U.S. EPAStar Projects to develop estuarine wetlandshealth indicators, advise Bay Area wetlandsmonitoring designs, and to study Bay Area eco-logical goods and services. S.F. Estuary Institutehas also undertaken a redesign of the RegionalMonitoring Program for Trace Substances toadapt it to new management needs. Efforts areunderway to better integrate the variety of moni-toring programs related to the areas of concernidentified in the CCMP.

EXPAND THE REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM TO ADDRESS ALL KEY CCMP ISSUES, INCLUDING POLLUTION, WETLANDS, WATERSHEDS, DREDGING, BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES, LAND USE AND FLOWS. INTEGRATE THE RESULTS OF SCIENTIFIC MONITORING INTO MANAGEMENT AND REGULATORY ACTIONS.

99-01 96-99

99-01 96-99

PRIORITY 7: REGIONAL MONITORING SUMMARY


12-37%

23

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

INFLOW STANDARDS

PRIORITY 8. PROMULGATE BASELINE INFLOW STANDARDS FOR SAN FRANCISCO, SAN PABLO AND SUISUN BAYS TO PROTECT AND RESTORE THE ESTUARY.

AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 4.1

Adopt water quality and flow standards and operational requirements designed to halt andreverse the decline of indigenousand desirable non-indigenous estuarine biota.

• The "baseline" regulatory standards adopted aspart of the CALFED Record of Decision in August2000 include requirements for maximum allow-able ratio of export rates to water inflow rates,requirements for location and duration of loca-tion of "X2", and agricultural water quality stan-dards. The standards were originally developedby the S.F. Estuary Project and then incorporatedin the Bay Delta Accord and the Water QualityControl Plan.

• In spring 2001 the Cal Fish & Game and theNational Marine Fisheries Service adoptedstream flow and stream diversion guidelines toprotect anadromous fisheries.

• The Putah Creek settlement calls for enhancedstream flows to provide better temperature andflow conditions for native fishes.

• The Water Rights Division of the State Board hasno authority to assess and enforce instream flowneeds.


Identify alternative long-termwater quality and flow standards,water management measures,operational changes, habitatimprovements and facilities asneeded to manage estuarineaquatic resources (including water)for optimum benefit.

• The San Joaquin River Agreement was officiallylaunched in 2000 (although some related waterreleases to the river took place prior to that). The Agreement includes the Vernalis AdaptiveManagement Plan, a 12-year experimentalmanipulation of San Joaquin River inflow andexport rates for the purpose of 1) providing whatare thought to be somewhat beneficial condi-tions for outmigrating San Joaquin basin salmonsmolts, and 2) quantifying the relationshipbetween inflow, export rates and outmigrantsalmon survival. Under the agreement, 110,000af of water is provided by water users to aug-ment spring flows, while another 12,500 af isdedicated to augmenting fall attraction flows,and an additional 15,000 af is available for envi-ronmental uses at any time throughout the year.

• CALFED’S 2000 Record of Decision, andEcosystem Restoration Program, includes anambitious package of long term water manage-ment measures, habitat improvements and facili-ties changes which, if fully implemented, mayimprove management of estuarine resourcesand processes.

• CALFED is exploring alternative operation of theDelta Cross Channel for water quality and envi-ronmental impact benefits, including fish pas-sage improvements.

• In 2000, the City of San Jose’s Coyote CreekStreamflow Augmentation Pilot Project, whichwill test the use of recycled water to augmentstreamflows during dry periods, obtained anNPDES permit to discharge recycled water. Theproject is in its third year of baseline monitoring.

• Energy costs and groundwater issues haveslowed the Coyote Creek StreamflowAugmentation Pilot Project and there is currentlyno date set to begin actual discharges of recy-cled water.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT 5.2

Develop an EIS/EIR to display the alternatives and tradeoffs identified in Action AR 5.1 and toinitiate the selection of a preferred

alternative.

• The Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement for the Central Valley ProjectImprovement Act, which allocates 800,000 af ofCVP yield to environmental purposes, was final-ized in fall 2000. (See AR 5.3.)

• The EIS/EIR for the CALFED program, whichincludes the Environmental Water Account andthe Environmental Water Program, was releasedin August 2000. (See AR 5.3)

99-01

99-01

99-01

24

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

INFLOW STANDARDS



Implement the alternative fromAction AR 5.2 (including the adoption of long-term water quality and flow standards andoperational requirements) thatbest optimizes conditions foraquatic resources, efficiently conserves scarce water resources

and restores an equi-table balance to theestuarine ecosystem.

• After years of lawsuits (which continue), in mid-1999 BurRec issued a decision on anaccounting method for the 800,000 af of waterallocated to environmental purposes by theCentral Valley Project Improvement Act. BurRecbegan implementing the so-called b(2) waterprogram, using the new accounting methodshortly thereafter. The purpose of the b(2) pro-gram is to improve habitat conditions foranadromous fish by enhancing stream flows andreducing export rates during sensitive periods.

• CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Programincludes the Environmental Water Account,which began implementation in the winter of2001. EWA allows fisheries agencies to reducewater project diversions from the Delta duringfish migration periods, replacing curtailed diver-sions with water from the account. EWA includesprovisions for manipulating project operations,such as using Joint Point of Diversion.

• CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program alsoincludes the Environmental Water Program.EWP, which is still being planned, is designed toenhance Delta inflows during critical periods(e.g., spring).

AQUATIC RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT 6.1

Provide necessary instream flowsand temperatures to benefitsalmon and steelhead in theCentral Valley to support theimplementation of the state and

federal mandates todouble the naturalproduction of anadro-mous fishes.

• Both the Central Valley Project Improvement Act(b)(2) program and (to a substantially lesserextent) CALFED’s Environmental Water Accounthave been implemented to provide enhancedinstream flows.

• The Vernalis Adaptive Management Planincludes some temperature control measures onthe lower mainstem San Joaquin River.

AQUATIC RESOURCESMANAGEMENT 6.2

Implement the Upper SacramentoRiver Management Plan.

99-01

99-01

99-01

25

Action






RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

INFLOW STANDARDS



Develop and implement the SanJoaquin River Management Planto identify reservoir operationalchanges, habitat improvementmeasures, and other action itemsto improve habitat and health ofthe aquatic ecosystem in the SanJoaquin River watershed.

• The Sacramento and San Joaquin River BasinsComprehensive Study was launched in the wakeof severe flooding in 1997 to develop a system-wide, comprehensive flood management planfor the Central Valley to reduce flood damagesand integrate ecosystem restoration. Work isunderway on concept plans that address specifictargets for flood protection and ecosytemrestoration and specific strategies for combiningpotential measures.

• The San Joaquin River Riparian Program, acooperative effort between environmentalgroups and the Friant Water Users, sent 35,000acre-feet of water flowing between Friant Damand Mendota pool in the summer of 1999. Thepilot project continued in 2000 and 2001,although because these were drier years, lesswater was released. In addition, the parties aredeveloping a long-term plan to restore the SanJoaquin; a proposed project is expected in early2002 and will be followed by an EIS/EIR.

99-01

PRIORITY 8: INFLOW STANDARDS SUMMARY

AVERAGE IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL:

21-43%

26

RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

APPENDIX AWetlands and Riparian Habitat Acquired and Restored in the S.F. Bay-Delta Estuary*Between April 1999 and September 2001

MAJOR WETLAND AND RIPARIAN ACQUISITIONS33,042 acres(of current wetland areas or areas to be restored; note some overlapwith restoration projects list)

NORTH BAY

• Atherton Avenue, Marin County, 80 acres (grassland & associated wet-lands), Marin Audubon Society

• Bel Marin Keys, Marin County, 1,613 acres (planned for restoration),California Coastal Conservancy

• Ghisletta Property, Napa County, 82 acres (planned for restoration totidal marsh), The Land Trust of Napa County

• Kirker Creek, Contra Costa County, 4 acres (wetlands), City of Pittsburg• South Napa River, Napa County, 463 acres acquired plus 50-acre dona-

tion (planned for tidal marsh restoration), City of American Canyon• Triangle Marsh, Marin County, 33 acres (wetlands), California Coastal

Conservancy & Marin Audubon Society

DELTA/SUISUN

• Cowell Property, San Joaquin County, 329 acres (planned for conversionto organic rice pasture), Cosumnes River Preserve

• Liberty Island, Solano & Yolo Counties, 4,750 acres, Trust for PublicLand

• Lower Joice Island, Solano County, 1,300 acres (300 acres tidal wet-lands; 1,000 acres managed wetlands & associated uplands), SuisunRCD

• McCormack-Williamson Tract, Sacramento County, 1,600 acres (plannedfor future restoration), The Nature Conservancy

• Silverado, Sacramento County, 122 acres (planned for restoration tofloodplain habitat), Bureau of Land Management

• Staten Island, San Joaquin County, 9,200 acres (seasonally floodedfarmland), The Nature Conservancy

• Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Sacramento County, 658 acres,U.S. Fish & Wildlife

• Yolo Basin Wildlife Area, Expansions 3 & 4, Yolo County, 12,808 acres,Wildlife Conservation Board & Cal Fish & Game

PLANNED OR IN-PROGRESS RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS25,302 – 25,502 acres and 36,020 linear feet

NORTH BAY

• Burn Unit, Napa County, 70 acres (seasonal wetlands enhancement),Ducks Unlimited, Cal Fish & Game, California Coastal Conservancy &Wildlife Conservation Board

• Camp 2, Sonoma County, 608 acres (seasonal wetlands enhancement),Ducks Unlimited, Cal Fish & Game, California Coastal Conservancy &Wildlife Conservation Board

• Carriger Creek, Sonoma County, 800 feet (riparian restoration), SouthernSonoma County RCD

• Champlin Creek, Sonoma County, 5,900 feet (riparian restoration),Southern Sonoma County RCD

• Hamilton Wetlands Restoration, Marin County, 900 acres, BayCommission & California Coastal Conservancy

• Huichica Creek (Napa Marsh Wildlife Area), Napa & Sonoma Counties,30 acres (native grassland restoration), Ducks Unlimited, Cal Fish &Game & Wildlife Conservation Board

• Nathenson Creek, Sonoma County, 200 feet (riparian restoration),Southern Sonoma County RCD

• North Parcel/Leonard Ranch, Sonoma County, 472 acres (seasonal wet-lands restoration), Sonoma Land Trust

• Oakland Middle Harbor Enhancement Area, Alameda County, 5 acres(intertidal wetlands), Port of Oakland & Army Corps

• Pond 8, Napa County, 102 acres (tidal wetlands enhancement), DucksUnlimited & Cal Fish & Game

• Ringstrom Bay, Napa County, 313 acres (seasonal wetlands enhance-ment) Ducks Unlimited, Cal Fish & Game & Wildlife Conservation Board

• Simmons Slough Wildlife Corridor, Marin County, 140 acres (diked bay-lands habitat enhancement), Marin Audubon Society

• Tubbs Island Levee Setback, Sonoma County, 72 acres (tidal wetlandsrestoration), Ducks Unlimited & U.S. Fish & Wildlife

SOUTH BAY

• Eden Landing, Santa Clara County, 945 acres (wetlands -- 600 acresrestoration, 345 enhancement), Cal Fish & Game

DELTA/SUISUN

• Canal Ranch, San Joaquin County, 3,000 acres (planned for restoration& wildlife-friendly farming), Cal Fish & Game

• East Delta Habitat Corridor (Georgiana Slough), 8,000 linear feet of bankprotection (4,000 linear feet complete; 4,000 linear feet in progress),Habitat Assessment & Restoration Team

• Franks Tract Restoration, Contra Costa County, 45 acres, CA Dept. ofParks & Recreation, Dept. of Water Resources & Moffat & NicholEngineers

• Jepson Prairie, Solano County, 1 mile (riparian restoration) & 600 acres(grassland restoration), Solano County Farmlands Open SpaceFoundation

• Joice Island Wildlife Area (Suisun Marsh), Solano County, 1,800 acres(semi-permanent & seasonal wetlands enhancement), WildlifeConservation Board & Cal Fish & Game

MITIGATION RELATED PROJECTS CONTINUED

• Runway 11-29 Rehabilitation, Alameda County, 0.5 acre (seasonal wet-lands creation) & 7 acres (seasonal wetlands enhancement/preservationat Damon Slough), Port of Oakland

• Ryland Homes Storm Drain Project, Contra Costa County, 0.5 acre (con-servation easement), Sycamore Associates LLC

• San Ramon Boulevard Improvement Project, Contra Costa County, 0.18acre (riparian), City of San Ramon

• Sonoma Valley Oaks Subdivision, Sonoma County, 0.2 acre (purchase ofmitigation credits for wetlands at Burdell Ranch Wetland ConservationBank), Stephen Kyle

• St. Isidore Church, Contra Costa County, 0.5 acre (conservation ease-ment), St. Isidore Church

• State Route 101 Approach Lane Project, Marin County, 0.13 acre (sea-sonal wetlands), CalTrans

• State Route 4 Gap Project, Contra Costa County, 4 acres (seasonal wet-lands), 0.6 hectacre (red-legged frog breeding pools) & 1 hectacre (ripar-ian), CalTrans

• Sunset Meadows Subdivision, Napa County, 0.72 acre (seasonal marshwetlands), City of American Canyon

• Thiessen Office Building Project, Contra Costa County, 0.5 acre (conser-vation easement), Sycamore Associates LLC

• Walkaway Bridge Replacement, Contra Costa County, 0.77 acre (wet-lands), Kenneth Chainey

SOUTH BAY• Alviso Property/Cisco Systems, Santa Clara County, 0.77 acre (wet-

lands), Cisco Systems• Boulder Ridge Golf Club, Santa Clara County, 0.34 acre (emergent wet-

lands), GlenRock Development• Cooley Landing, San Mateo County, 10 acres (wetlands creation) & 115

acres (wetlands enhancement), Phone-Poulenc• Fairmont Estates, San Mateo County, 0.65 acre (seasonal freshwater

wetlands), Wetlands Research Associates• Mariner Island, San Mateo County, 0.6 acre (wetlands creation at adja-

cent State Lands parcel), Pacific Bay Homes LLC• Montague Expressway Widening Project, Santa Clara County, 0.94 acre

(erosion control along 200 linear feet of channel bank immediatelyupstream of project site), Focus Realty Services

• Outer Bair Island, San Mateo County, 37.5 acres (tidal seasonal wetlandscreation) & 140 acres (enhancement of existing diked salt marsh wet-lands), California Wildlife Foundation

• Oyster Point Hook Ramps, San Mateo County, 1.1 acres (wetlands cre-ation) & 0.72 acre (wetlands enhancement), City of South San FranciscoDept. of Public Works

• Pacific Ridge Development at Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, 2.61acres, Ailanto Properties

• Pacific Shores Project, San Mateo County, 22 acres (tidal marsh), PacificShores Center

• Piedmont 237 LLC Development Project, Santa Clara County, 0.5 acre(riparian), Piedmont 237 LLC

• Preston Office & Warehouse, Santa Clara County, 0.48 acre (wetlands &grassy swales), Michael Preston

27


RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

MITIGATION-RELATED RESTORATION PROJECTSCOMPLETED OR PLANNED AND FUNDED**Net gain in Bay region: 204 wetland acres

NORTH BAY• Bailey Ranch, Alameda County, 0.81 acres (wetlands), Keenan Land Co.• Bayside Business Park Phase II, Alameda County, 30 acres, King &

Lyons• Crystal Ranch Drive, Contra Costa County, 2.06 acres (seasonal wet-

lands), Braddock & Logan Group• Double Eagle Tract 8162, Contra Costa County, 0.25 acre (mixed wet-

land/riparian habitat), Paramount Homes LLC• Elm Crest Subdivision, Marin County, 0.16 acre (seasonal wetlands &

adjacent uplands), Noyer Group• Galvin Property Wetland Fill, Napa County, 3.84 acres (seasonal wet-

lands), Dickerson, Peatman & Fogerty• Garin Heights Estates Tract 4609, Alameda County, 0.1 acre (wetlands),

Gibson & Skordal• Ghisletta Project, Napa County, 0.35 acre (wetlands), Simeon

Residential Properties• Hercules Village Project, Contra Costa County, 0.06 acre

(creation/enhancement of onsite pond) & 4,000 linear feet (enhance-ment of Central Channel on site), Bixby Company LLC

• Highlands Ranch Project, Contra Costa County, 0.02 acre (purchase atOak Hills Blast Zone Mitigation Area) & 170 linear feet (enhancement ofstream at Clayton Ranch), West Coast Home Builders

• Hogg Residence, Marin County, 0.16 acre (flooded tidal wetland onCorte Madera Ecological Reserve), Huffman & Associates

• Holly Creek Estates, Contra Costa County, 0.91 acre, DeNova Homes• Jenmar Gas Station, Alameda County, 0.29 acre (seasonal wetlands

creation) & .12 acre (seasonal wetlands enhancement), Jenmar LandCorp.

• Laird Drive Subdivision, Contra Costa County, 0.36 acre (seasonal wet-lands), Batavia Land Co.

• Lincoln Stevenson Development, Alameda County, 1.4 acre (onsiteemergent freshwater wetlands), H.T. Harvey & Associates

• The Lodge at Sonoma, Sonoma County, 2.31 acres (seasonal wetlands),Sonoma Resort LLC

• Main Street Roadway & Greenway Improvement, Alameda County, 0.25acre (wetlands), City of Alameda Public Works Department

• Mallard Slough Pump Station Project, Contra Costa County, 0.53 acre(brackish marsh), EDAW

• Marin Business Center Project, Marin County, 0.04 acre (seasonal wet-lands), Wood Hollow LLC

• Mission Bay Channel Improvement Project, San Francisco County, 0.18acre (vegetated wetlands), Catellus Development Corp.

• Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area, Huichica Creek Unit, NapaCounty, 5.5 acres, Cal Fish & Game

• Oak Hills 5 South Project, Contra Costa County, 0.1 acre (onsite riparianenhancement) & 38 acres (purchase of land owned by East BayRegional Parks District for enhancement), West Coast Home Builders

• Oak Knoll Estates, Contra Costa County, 2.92 acres (seasonal wetlands),Sycamore Associates LLC

• Oakland International Airport Development Program, Alameda County,11.81 (seasonal wetlands), Oakland Airport, Port of Oakland & City ofOakland

• Park Ridge, Alameda County, 0.6 acre (offsite seasonal wetlands atPlummer Creek Mitigation Bank), Sycamore Associates LLC

• Parkview Subdivision, Contra Costa County, 6.47 acres (0.47 acre ofonsite native riparian enhancement & purchase of 6 acres of offsitemitigation at Silva Ranch), Focus Realty Services

• Ranch on Silver Creek, Santa Clara County, 0.75 acre (wetlands), PresleyHomes

• Route 87 Freeway Project, Santa Clara County, 10.53 acres (wetland &riparian habitat along the Guadalupe River), David J. Powers &Associates

• San Pedro Creek Flood Control Project, San Mateo County, 3.1 acres,City of Pacifica

• Santa Clara County Field Sports Park, Santa Clara County, 0.35 acre(wetlands), Sycamore Associates LLC

DELTA/SUISUN• Fieldcrest Residential Development Project, Solano County, 2.32 acres

(seasonal wetlands), A.D. Seeno Construction Co.• Grizzly Island Bridge Replacement, Solano County, 0.3 acre (wetlands),

Solano County Transportation Dept.• Guadalcanal Village Mitigation Site, Solano County, 1.4 acres (wet-

lands), CalTrans• Horseshoe Lake Estates, Solano County, 1.5 acre (seasonal wetlands),

William Lyon Homes• Sears Point/SR 37 & California Meadows Sanitary Sewer Rerouting

Project, Solano County, 1.4 acres (tidal wetlands creation in GuadalcanalVillage Mitigation Site), Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District

• Solano County Health Facility, Solano County, 2.6 acres (seasonal wet-lands), Solano County

• Travis Air Force Base Military Housing, Solano County, 2 acres (vernalpools & swales; Air Force also to contribute $70,000 to mitigation bank),U.S. Air Force

• Union Pacific Railroad, Port of Benicia Storage Tracks Project, SolanoCounty, 0.1 acre (emergent wetland), Union Pacific Railroad Co.

PERMITS ISSUED AS WASTE DISCHARGEREQUIREMENTS/401 CERTIFICATIONS BY S.F. REGIONAL BOARD

• Dixon Landing Road Interchange, 31 acres (seasonal wetlands, vernalpools)

• Middle Harbor, Alameda County, 180 acres (subtidal and intertidal, eel-grass, tidal marsh), Army Corps. and Port of Oakland

• Montezuma, Solano County, 1,800 acres (tidal, seasonal, fluvial sys-tems), Levine-Fricke & Montezuma LLC

• Napa Flood Control Project, Napa County, 217 acres (wetlands creation),389 acres (wetlands enhancement) & 72 acres (contiguous uplands),Army Corps. & Napa County Flood Control & Water District

• Pacific Commons, Alameda County, 77 acres (onsite wetlands creation),60 acres (onsite wetlands enhancement), total acres preserved = 444on/near site & 840 offsite, Catellus Corp. & City of Fremont

BAY REGION 401 CERTIFICATIONS OR WAIVERS SINCE 1999Acres Impacted: 122 wetland acres filledAcres Gained: 204 wetland acres gainedLinear Feet Impacted: 12,884 feet

SELECTED BAY REGION WASTE DISCHARGEREQUIREMENTS PROJECTS SINCE 1999Acres Impacted: 921 wetland acres filledAcres Gained: 2,305 wetland acres (and associated habitat types)Acreage amounts supplied by S.F. Regional Board and may change

pending further review.

COMPLETED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS11,420 acres, 1,320 linear feet and 3,500 square feet(Which, if any, of these projects include a mitigation component is not known.)

NORTH BAY

• Baxter Creek, Contra Costa County, 6 acres (creek/riparian restoration),UCC & City of Richmond

• Buchli Station Pond, Napa County, 4 acres (permanent wetlands restora-tion), Ducks Unlimited & Cal Fish & Game

• Codornices & Cerritos Creeks, Alameda County, 11 acres (creek/riparianrestoration), Friends of 5 Creeks

• Corte Madera Creek, Marin County, 1 acre (creek/riparian restoration),Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed

• Crissy Field, San Francisco County, 20 acres (wetlands restoration),National Park Service

• Elkhorn Creek, Contra Costa County, 2 acres (creek/riparian restoration),Carquinez Regional Environmental Education Center

• Huichica Pond, Napa County, 4 acres (seasonal wetlands restoration),Ducks Unlimited & Cal Fish & Game

• Novato, Miller & Manor Creeks, Marin County, <1 acre (creek/riparianrestoration), Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program

• Oro Loma Marsh (NE), Alameda County, 18 acres (wetlands restoration),Port of Oakland

• Pier 98, San Francisco County, 14 acres (wetlands enhancement), Port ofSan Francisco

• Pond 1, Solano County, 882 acres (tidal wetlands enhancement), DucksUnlimited & Cal Fish & Game

• Plummer Creek, Alameda County, 11.4 acres (seasonal wetlands),Wildlands

• San Ramon Creek, Contra Costa County, 1 acre (creek/riparian restora-tion), Urban Creeks Council

• Shell Marsh, Contra Costa County, 200 acres (wetlands restoration),Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District

• Sonoma Creek, Sonoma County, <1 acre (creek/riparian restoration),Sonoma Ecology Center

• Tehan Creek, Alameda County, 50 acres (creek/riparian restoration),Friends of the Estuary

• Temescal Creek, Alameda County, 1 acre (creek/riparian enhancement),Friends of Temescal Creek

• Wildcat Creek (lower reach), Contra Costa County, 1.5 acres (creek/ripari-an restoration), Waterways Restoration Institute

• Wildcat Creek, Contra Costa County, 1/4 mile (creek/riparian enhance-ment), Friends of the Estuary & East Bay Regional Parks District

SOUTH BAY

• Arastradero Creek, Santa Clara County, 3,500 square feet (riparianrestoration, bullfrog eradication), Bay Area Action

• Bair Island, San Mateo County, 155 acres (tidal marsh), Peninsula OpenSpace Trust & U.S. Fish & Wildlife

• Sinkhole, Alameda County, 36.5 acres (tidal wetlands enhancement),Ducks Unlimited & U.S. Fish & Wildlife

• Triangle Marsh, Alameda County, 10 acres (tidal wetlands restoration),Ducks Unlimited & U.S. Fish & Wildlife

DELTA/SUISUN

• Marsh Creek/Cowell Ranch, Contra Costa County, <1 acre (creek/riparianrestoration), City of Brentwood

• Suisun Marsh, Solano County, 10,000 acres (managed wetlandsenhancement), Ducks Unlimited & Suisun RCD

continued over

28


RE

PO

RT

CA

RD

APPENDIX AWetlands and Riparian Habitat Acquired and Restored in the S.F. Bay-Delta Estuary*Between April 1999 and September 2001

WETLAND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS4,992 acres

SOUTH BAY• Purisima Creek (Purisima Farms), San Mateo County, 3 acres,

California Coastal Conservancy

DELTA/SUISUN• Allen Property Easement, Sacramento County,

323 acres (farmland & riparian forest), Cosumnes River Preserve• Ben Brown Property Easement, Sacramento County,

370 acres (vernal pool grasslands), Cosumnes River Preserve• George Dairy Easement, Sacramento County,

607 acres (farmland, with 100 acres planned for creekside restoration), Cosumnes River Preserve

• Fred Denier Property , Sacramento County, 475 acres (half farmed; half planned for restoration to activefloodplain & riparian habitat), Cosumnes River Preserve

• Frank Machado Property Easement, Sacramento County, 438 acres (farmland buffer to core preserve), Cosumnes RiverPreserve

• Mehrton Property Easement, Sacramento County, 747 acres (vernal pool grasslands), Cosumnes River Preserve

• Pellandini Property Easement, Sacramento County, 647 acres (farmland), Cosumnes River Preserve

• Ragsdale Property Easement, Sacramento County, 48 acres (farmland), Cosumnes River Preserve

• Schneider Property Easement, Sacramento County, 1,137 acres (vernal pool grasslands), Cosumnes River Preserve

• Van Steyn Property Easement, Sacramento County, 197 acres (farmland), Cosumnes River Preserve

SOURCESBay CommissionCALFEDCentral Valley Joint VentureDucks UnlimitedThe Nature Conservancy, Cosumnes River PreserveS.F. Joint VentureS.F. Regional BoardS.F. Estuary ProjectWildlife Conservation Board

*Nine Bay counties and three Delta counties: Sacramento, San Joaquinand Yolo

**Acreage amounts for mitigation-related projects supplied by S.F.Regional Board and may change pending further review.

If you have additions, changes or corrections to this list,please email them to Kathryn Ankrum at [email protected] list will be posted to the S.F. Estuary Project Website (http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/sfep) no later thanOct. 31, 2001.

Report Card Team

Project Management

San Francisco Estuary ProjectMarcia Brockbank

S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control BoardCCMP Implementation CommitteeLarry Kolb, Chair

Research

Cariad HayesKathryn Ankrum

Design

Darren Campeauwww.dcampeau.com

To make suggestions or corrections for any future editions of this workbook, contact: (510) 622-2465

San Francisco Estuary Project

1515 Clay Street, #1400Oakland, CA 94612

Date post:	22-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

ORKBOOK ROJECT CARDREPORT ENVIRONMENTAL...

Documents