Restoring the Estuary

A Framework for CollaborativeAction on Wetlands

A Framework for CollaborativeAction on Wetlands

Wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area areamong the most important coastal wintering

and migratory stopover areas for millions of water-fowl and shorebirds traveling along the Pacific Fly-way, which stretches from Alaska to South America.These wetlands also provide economic benefits,offer a range of recreational opportunities, and con-tribute to a higher quality of life for residents in thedensely populated San Francisco Bay Area. They areessential aspects of the Bay region’s unique charac-ter and, along with the creeks that flow into the Bay,help to define the vibrant and distinctive identitiesof communities around the Bay. However, despitetheir value, destruction of these precious naturalassets continues. Today’s wetlands are only a rem-nant, perhaps 20 percent of the vast wetlands seenby the first European settlers. Yet the destructionhas continued. Likewise, some 95 percent of the BayArea’s riparian habitat has been damaged ordestroyed, and some of the five percent remaining isthreatened.

Purpose of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture and

Its Implementation Strategy

Responding to the loss of wetlands and their poten-tial functions and values, individuals representing a

range of interests—including resource and regulato-ry agencies, environmental organizations, business,and agriculture—convened the San Francisco BayJoint Venture (SFBJV) in June of 1995. In September1996, 20 parties representing this diverse wetlandsconstituency signed a working agreement that iden-tified the goals and objectives of the SFBJV, and theresponsibilities of its board and working commit-tees. The agreement also stated that the Implemen-tation Strategy would be developed to guide its par-ties toward the long-term vision of the restored BayEstuary. The signatory partners recognized andendorsed the goals of the North American WaterfowlManagement Plan. However, they enlarged the goalsand objectives of the Plan to include benefits notonly for waterfowl, but also for the other wildlifethat depends on Bay wetlands and riparian habitats.(See Appendix A for the “SFBJV Working Agree-ment.”)

As defined in the Working Agreement, the goalof the SFBJV “is to protect, restore, increase, andenhance all types of wetlands, riparian habitat, andassociated uplands throughout the San Francisco Bayregion to benefit waterfowl and other fish and wildlifepopulations.” Several objectives (or means to accom-plish the goals) were defined. In summary, these are:

• Protecting, restoring, and enhancing wetlands,riparian habitat, and associated uplands by fund-ing restoration, applying incentives, and othernon-regulatory approaches

1

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

• Strengthening the sources of funding for theseefforts

• Providing support for monitoring and evaluationof existing restoration projects

• Preparing an Implementation Strategy for the SanFrancisco Bay Joint Venture

• Supporting monitoring of habitat restorationprojects and research to improve future initia-tives.

The SFBJV Implementation Strategy serves as the concept plan for partners to accomplish the Joint Venture’s goals and objectives by using an innovative collaborative and non-regulatoryapproach. It is based on an ecosystem perspectivethat integrates the range of biological requirementswith public health and safety considerations of wet-lands. It offers strategies to help fulfill the statedacquisition, enhancement, and restoration goals forwetland habitats. These habitat goals and associat-ed strategies are designed to guide the Joint Venturepartners in identifying priorities for wetland andriparian habitat protection and restoration, in deter-mining funding needs and resources, and in recom-mending actions and partnerships to carry out thehabitat goals.

The SFBJV’s integrated biological vision isreflected by the Joint Venture’s organizational inclu-siveness and diversity: its Management Board nowconsists of 27 agencies, nonprofit conservationorganizations, business representatives, and agricul-tural groups, all working toward the stated goals andobjectives. A broad range of roles and abilities ispresent among these diverse partner organizations(Table 1-1). By joining forces, arriving at commoninterests, leveraging existing resources, and findingnew resources and partners, the Joint Ventureintends to protect and restore far more wetland

2 Restoring the Estuary

Table 1-1Organizations Represented on the Management Board of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture

Nonprofit & Private Organizations

Adopt-A-Watershed

Bay Area Audubon Council

Bay Area Open Space Council

Bay Planning Coalition

Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge

Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

National Audubon Society

Point Reyes Bird Observatory

PG&E Corporation

Save San Francisco Bay Association

Sierra Club

The Bay Institute

The Conservation Fund

Urban Creeks Council of California

Public Agencies (Ex-Officio Members)

Bay Conservation and Development Commission

California Department of Fish and Game

Coastal Conservancy

Coastal Region, Mosquito and Vector Control District

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

National Marine Fisheries Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Regional Water Quality Control Board, San FranciscoBay Region

San Francisco Estuary Project

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Wildlife Conservation Board

Avocets, cormorants, and the San Francisco skyline MARK RAUZON, 1995

Chapter 1—A Framework for Collaborative Action on Wetlands 3

habitat than would be possible if all the partnerswere to work separately.

Policy Foundations of the SanFrancisco Bay Joint Venture

The groundwork for the SFBJV was laid over adecade ago with the signing of the North AmericanWaterfowl Management Plan. The United States andCanada signed in 1986, followed by Mexico in 1994.The Plan was designed to foster public/private part-nerships to increase waterfowl populations to 1970levels. It designated the San Francisco Bay as one of34 “Waterfowl Habitat Areas of Major Concern” inthe U.S. and Canada. The major emphasis of the Planwas on the restoration and enhancement of wetlandecosystems as the basis for recovery of waterfowland other associated migratory birds. It called forthe formation of cooperative associations or “jointventures.” These joint ventures were formedbetween federal and state agencies and privateorganizations to collaborate in planning, fundingand implementing projects designed to conserveand enhance wetlands in high priority regions ofNorth America. The Plan created this organizationalframework to accomplish waterfowl populationgoals, and directed that joint ventures prepare theirown implementation strategies identifying protec-tion, enhancement, and restoration acreage goalsand objectives.

The Plan’s overall goalis to ensure habitat for 62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight of more than 100million. The continent-wideplanning effort is being led by 14 regionally oriented joint ventures with region-specific objectives and strate-gies founded on waterfowlresearch conducted by feder-al and state agencies. In theSan Francisco Bay Area, thisresearch is contained in the1989 Concept Plan for Water-fowl Habitat prepared by theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The approach of theNorth American WaterfowlManagement Plan has beenenormously successful over

the past decade. As of 1998, about 1.8 million acreshad been protected, 642,500 acres had been restoredand 2.14 million acres had been enhanced by the tenreporting joint ventures in the United States. Partnercontributions totaled $1.5 billion from federal, state,and local governments, private organizations, andindividuals. For more information about the relation-ship of the SFBJV to the Plan see Appendix B.

Other conservation planning initiatives onbehalf of birds have recognized the success of thePlan and are emulating it. Partners in Flight, a coali-tion of bird conservation groups, is focusing on neo-tropical migrants, and has recently prepared a ripar-ian bird conservation plan for California. TheManomet Center for Conservation Sciences recentlycompleted the United States Shorebird Conser-vation Plan in cooperation with the Point Reyes BirdObservatory, which assumed responsibility for thesection regarding shorebirds on the California coast,San Francisco Bay, and in the Central Valley. A conti-nent-wide conservation plan has also been preparedfor “colonial waterbirds” (which include terns, gulls,herons, and egrets). Late in 1998, leaders from theseseparate initiatives began developing a frameworkto promote cooperative, ecologically based migrato-ry bird conservation throughout the nation. TheSFBJV has been coordinating and collaborating withother bird conservation planning efforts and willcontinue to do so.

A joint venture in the San Francisco Bay Areawas also envisioned as a means to implement theComprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP) for the San Francisco Bay. The CCMP is

The Golden Gate: San Francisco Estuary meets the Pacific Ocean. LISA WOO SHANKS, 1999


a plan for the estuary, the product of a five-year consensus-building process known as the SanFrancisco Estuary Project. It was completed inMarch 1993, and signed by 42 agencies and organiza-tions. The CCMP specifically called for the formationof a joint venture to increase the acreage of wetlandspermanently protected in the San Francisco Estuary.

Wetland characterizations and habitat acreagegoals contained in the present Strategy, along withtheir scientific basis, are derived from the findingsand habitat recommendations of the BaylandsEcosystem Habitat Goals (Habitat Goals), a visionaryecosystem management plan for the restoration ofthe Bay Estuary, published in March 1999. More than100 scientists and resource managers from manyorganizations and disciplines collaborated for fouryears to produce the document in light of commentsfrom public and environmental organizations.

For a closer look at how the CCMP and HabitatGoals serve as a foundation for this implementationstrategy, see Appendix B.

Geographic Scope

The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture encompassesthe San Francisco Bay and the watersheds that draininto the estuary. As shown in Figure 1-1, it includessubstantial parts of the nine counties surroundingthe San Francisco Bay. Flanked to the northwest bythe Pacific Coast Joint Venture and to the east by theCentral Valley Habitat Joint Venture (CVHJV), theSFBJV is the only joint venture to be found in amajor metropolitan area. It extends into the SanJoaquin Delta as far as Brentwood along the Contra

Costa County shoreline, but does not include all ofSuisun Bay, only its uplands. The remaining area,including that portion of the Suisun Marsh belowthe 10-foot contour line, is within the scope of theCentral Valley Habitat Joint Venture. The SFBJV andthe CVHJV recognize Suisun Bay and the far easternpart of Contra Costa as “areas of mutual interest.”They will coordinate and cooperate, whereverappropriate, on projects within these areas. Thegeographic scope of the SFBJV also includes coastalSan Francisco and San Mateo Counties, although notwestern Marin and Sonoma Counties, as these arecurrently part of the Pacific Coast Joint Venture ter-ritory. However, it is likely that the SFBJV will annexcoastal Marin and Sonoma Counties from the PacificCoast Joint Venture in the near future.

Accomplishments to Date

The diverse and innovative financial and technicalpartnerships among the many agency organizationsthat make up the SFBJV have enabled its partners toundertake wetland projects of significant scope.(Table 1-2) Between July 1996 and October 1999,SFBJV partners were involved in 22 separate proj-ects to protect, restore, or enhance wetlands in theSan Francisco Bay Area. Over 11,100 acres of wet-lands have benefited from SFBJV partnerships.

Achieving protection for existing wetlands is animportant first step. The acquisition efforts of SFBJVpartners have already protected 3,300 acres, includ-ing Bair Island where 1,600 acres have been placedunder federal protection and will be restored to tidalaction. The Peninsula Open Space Trust and U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service are leading this immense effort.At Hamilton Airfield, tidal action will be restored to800 acres in a project that is currently in the planningphases. The Army Corps of Engineers, CaliforniaCoastal Conservancy, Marin Audubon, and the Portof Oakland are partners in this major project.

The number and scale of wetland conservationprojects have increased recently. In spring 2000, plan-ning and implementation were under way for over30,000 acres of wetland and creek projects around theEstuary (as discussed in Chapter 6 of this document).One of the more substantial of the tidal marshrestoration projects, for example, is the almost 14,000acres of wetlands enhancement, restoration, and pro-tection that will be conducted through the NorthAmerican Wetlands Conservation Act grant for theSan Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

Canada geese in flight CENTRAL VALLEY HABITAT JOINT VENTURE, 1995

Chapter 1—A Framework for Collaborative Action on Wetlands 5

Figure 1-1San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Geographic Scope and Subregions


Table 1-2San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Partners’ Completed Habitat Protection andRestoration Projects (1996-1999)

Project Name Lead Partners Additional Partners Protected Restored Enhanced(acres) (acres) (acres)

Arrowhead Marsh EBRPD, Golden Gate Audubon, 72 72 0Port of Oakland STB, Sierra Club

Bair Island* POST, USFWS CCC, Citizens Committee to Com- 1,600 1,600* 0plete the Refuge, WCB, Audubon

Bull Island NCLT, CDFG State Lands Commission 109 0 0

Camp Two WCB, CDFG STB, SSRCD 608 0 0

Crissy Field National Park CA Public Utilities Commission, 0 20 0Service Haas Fund, S.F. International Airport,

CCC, City of SF

Eden Landing* CDFG Caltrans, Cities of San Jose, 835 600* 345*Fremont, and Milpitas, EBRPD, WCB

Gallinas Creek Marin Audubon CCC, Gallinas Sanitation District, 0 5 0Society USFWS, RWQCB

Mark Frelier Natural Resource landowner, Contra Costa RCD, 0 437 0Property Conservation Service USFWS

Moseley Tract City of San Jose City of San Jose 52 52* 0

Napa/Sonoma CDFG DU, WCB 0 550 0Marsh-Pond 2A

Oro Loma EBRPD City of Hayward, CCC, DFG, 0 364 0USFWS, WCB, GGAS

Pier 98 Port of San Francisco BCDC, CCC, GGAS, City of SF 0 0 14

Pillar Point* San Mateo County San Mateo County Parks 23 0 0

Point Edith* CCMVCD CDFG 0 0 850

Ravenswood* MPROSD MPROSD 0 200 0

Roe Island CDFG Department of Water Resources 0 67 0

Rush Creek CDFG, County of Marin Marin Audubon, CCC, Marin 0 0 300Community Fdn., USFWS, RWQCB

San Pablo Marsh USFWS, CDFG CDFG, USFWS 0 0 1,400

Shell Marsh CCMVCD CDFG, Caltrans 0 300 0

Shoreline at City of Mountain View City of Mountain View 0 60 0Mountain View

Tolay Creek USFWS CDFG, DU, EPA, Natural Resource 0 117 318Cons. Service, SSRCD, STB

Triangle Marsh CCC, Marin Audubon USFWS, State Lands Commission, 33 0 0CDFG, WCB, Individual Donors

Tubbs Island DU USFWS 0 0 125

TOTAL 3,332 4,444 3,352Source: San Francisco Estuary Project, 1999. Bay - Delta Environmental Report Card; SFBJV November 1999

*Projects with ongoing acquisition, restoration, and enhancement efforts

Abbreviations: CCC—California Coastal Conservancy, CDFG—California Department of Fish and Game, CCMVCD—Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District, DU—Ducks Unlimited, EBRPD—East Bay Regional Parks District,GGAS—Golden Gate Audubon Society, MPROSD—Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, NCLT—Napa CountyLand Trust, POST—Peninsula Open Space Trust, RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board, STB—Save the Bay,SSRCD—Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District, USFWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WCB—WildlifeConservation Board

US COASTAL SURVEY, 1857

Biological Foundations of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture

Biological Foundations of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture

Transforming the Landscape

Before the mid-1800s, the San Francisco Bay wasringed by roughly 190,000 acres of tidal marshes,

50,000 acres of tidal flats, 85,000 acres of seasonalwetlands and associated uplands (including vernalpools), and over 69,000 acres of riparian habitat, asillustrated in Figure 2-1, (Historical View of SanFrancisco Bay, circa 1770–1820). The San FranciscoBay and its adjoining watersheds was one of therichest and most diverse estuaries on the WestCoast; it supported populations of fish and wildlifethat today seem unimaginable. Early reports of theBay Area describe vast expanses of wetlands inhab-ited by millions of waterfowl, schools of salmon sodense that they choked the mile-wide CarquinezStrait, and plentiful numbers of grizzly bears andother big game animals.

Since the late 1800s, the growth of the humanpopulation has effected traumatic changes to thenatural landscape of the Bay Area. Large tracts of tidal marshes have been filled for urban develop-ment or federal and state projects, or diked for saltproduction or agriculture. Today, only 40,000 acresof tidal marsh remain, as shown in Figure 2-2, (Modern View of San Francisco Bay, circa 1998).Much of what remains has been degraded, and lessthan three percent of original wetland acreage is inrelatively pristine condition (State of the EstuaryReport 1992–1997). Development pressures have

destroyed or significantly altered over 80 percent ofthe tidal marshes and 40 percent of the mudflatsthat once rimmed two-thirds of the Bay’s shores.During this same period, riparian areas, seasonalwetlands, vernal pools, native grasslands, andcoastal scrub have all suffered similar, if not greater,losses due to development pressures.

The destruction or alteration of wetlands isnot limited to the forces of urbanization. Pollution,sedimentation, and water diversion have degradedthe health of the surviving wetlands. Historic influ-ences such as hydraulic mining also play a role, andtheir impacts can be persistent over time. The GoldRush-era mining of the mid-1800s sent enormoussediment loads into the Bay, causing changes inhabitat type and location, particularly of mudflats inthe North Bay. What remains of the Bay ecosystemis further stressed and modified by the impacts offreshwater diversions for urban uses around theBay, and agricultural and urban uses in the CentralValley and southern California. Up to 70 percent ofthe freshwater flows that would naturally enter theBay through the San Joaquin and Sacramento RiverSystems is now diverted. This has increased the netsalinity of the Bay with a consequent alteration ofthe plant and animal species residing in many wet-land communities. Local land uses have playeddirect and indirect roles in damaging wetlands: thefootprint of new buildings still displaces them; sedi-ment loads and erosion caused by developmentdegrade them. Stormwaters contaminated by auto-

2


Figure 2-1 Historical View of San Francisco Bay (circa 1770–1820)

Omiomi

Habasto

Huimen

Yelamu

Urebure

Ssalson

Lamchin

Puichon

Tamien"Santa Ysabel"

Alson

Tuibun

Yrgin

Jalquin

Huchiun

Huchiun-Aguasto Chupcan

Ompin

Malaca

Suisun

Carquin

Napa

Alaguali

Chocoime

Olompali

Petaluma

Deep Bay/Channel (>18 feet)

Shallow Bay/Channel (<18 feet)

Tidal Flat

Tidal Marsh

Tribal regions courtesy of Randall Milliken.

SCALE 1:450,000

0 4 8 12 16 Kilometers

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Miles

Bay Area EcoAtlas ©1999 San Francisco Estuary Institute

Chapter 2—Biological Foundations of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture 9

Figure 2-2Modern View of San Francisco Bay (circa 1998)

880

580

80

80

680

101

101

29

37

4

92

84

101

101

Deep Bay/Channel (>18 feet)

Shallow Bay/Channel (<18 feet)

Tidal Flat

Tidal Marsh

Diked Bayland

0 4 8 12 16 Kilometers

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Miles

SCALE 1:450,000

Bay Area EcoAtlas Version 1.50 ©1999 San Francisco Estuary Institute

Napa

Petaluma

Novato

San Rafael

Fairfield

Concord

Richmond

Oakland

Hayward

Fremont

Redwood City

San Mateo

San Francisco

San Jose

Vallejo

SonomaBaylands

Hamilton FieldMare Island

San Pablo Bay

Sacramento–San JoaquinRivers Confluence

Suisun Bay

Pacific Ocean

motive metals, pesticides from lawns, and high bac-terial counts continue to stress wetlands and pollutethe Bay.

Such drastic impacts to the Bay’s wetlandecosystem have put fish and wildlife populations, aswell as the ecological health of the Bay, at risk. Mostof the threatened and endangered species, andalmost all of the commercial and recreational fishspecies in San Francisco Bay depend on wetland andriparian habitat. Numerous adult and juvenile fishspecies that are dependent on tidal marshes, suchas Chinook salmon and delta smelt, have declineddramatically due to the loss of habitat. The loss of aonce-thriving fishing industry has also severelyimpacted the economies of numerous Bay cities.

Wetland losses and degradation would havebeen even more severe were it not for state and fed-eral regulations, active public and nonprofit acquisi-tion programs, and increased public awareness. Theprotection and enhancement of wetlands and ripari-an corridors has been given a tremendous boostwith the growth of watershed planning efforts thatbring diverse stakeholders together. Approximately16,300 acres of wetlands were permanently protect-ed in the Bay region between 1992 and 1999. In addi-tion, about 9,040 acres of degraded or former wet-land were restored and enhanced during this periodof time. (CCMP Workbook, 1996; SFBJV, 1999) Whilethese figures are encouraging, much of the reportedacreage is submerged tideland and represents afraction of the potential. There is a tremendousamount of protection, restoration, and enhancementwork remaining for wetlands, riparian areas, andassociated uplands.

The establishment of the SFBJV was hastenedby the growing realization among all parties thatimmediate action is needed. The costs of acquiring

and restoring the remaining wetlands of San Fran-cisco Bay have skyrocketed over the past decade,and are likely to continue to climb. Restorationwork, which often meant only breaching a dike, nowmay cost from $4,000 to $20,000 per acre, given theneed for extensive grading, planting, new dike con-struction, or temporary irrigation.

Wildlife of San Francisco Bay

Waterfowl Use of the San Francisco Bay Area

The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most impor-tant coastal wintering and migrational areas forPacific Flyway waterfowl populations. Significantnumbers of the Pacific Flyway scaup (70%), scoter(60%), canvasback (42%), and bufflehead (38%) werelocated in the San Francisco Bay/Delta. According to1998 California Fish and Wildlife surveys, SanFrancisco Bay held the majority of California’s 1999wintering scaup (85%), scoter (89%), and canvas-back (70%) populations. More than 56 percent of theState’s 1999 wintering diving ducks were located inthe San Francisco Bay proper, which includes the saltponds and wetlands adjacent to the North and SouthBays. Although the San Francisco Bay is most recog-nized for its importance to diving ducks, large num-bers of dabbling ducks like pintail (23,500) andwigeon (14,000) were observed during the 1999 mid-winter waterfowl survey. For a more detailed analy-sis of winter waterfowl surveys for the San FranciscoBay Area, see Appendix F.

Regionally, the greatest variation observed in waterfowl numbers between years and seasons


Hydraulic mining in the Sierra foothills during the Gold Rushsent vast amounts of sediment downstream and into SanFrancisco Bay. COURTESY OF BANCROFT LIBRARY, UC BERKELEY

Dredging channels and levees have dramatically altered theface of the Estuary and armored its margins.COURTESY OF BANCROFT LIBRARY, UC BERKELEY

was in Suisun Bay, followed by the North Bay andNorth Bay salt pond regions. Waterfowl use wasmost consistent in the Central and South Bays, with some variation in the South Bay salt pondregion. The greater range of waterfowl use of the

North Bay may be due to the variability of salinityand the presence of wetlands in the adjacent delta.San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay are greatly influenced by outflows from the Sacramento and San JoaquinRivers.


The San Francisco Bay is a key wintering and stopover area along the Pacific Flyway. US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Waterfowl production in the San Francisco BayArea is typically limited to small numbers of mal-lards, gadwalls, northern pintails, cinnamon teals,and ruddy ducks. Tidal marshes, diked wetlands,and seasonal wetlands are the primary habitats ofnesting waterfowl. In addition, Canada geese havenested in the area in recent years.

The San Francisco Bay is of particular impor-tance to the future of canvasback and other diving duck populations of the Pacific Flyway. San Francisco Bay wetlands can—if protected,restored, and enhanced—play a significant role in meeting NAWMP’s overall objective of providingdiverse habitats and spreading waterfowl popula-tions over large geographical areas.

Other Important Species in the San Francisco Bay Area

Wetlands and adjoining uplands in the San FranciscoBay Area provide habitat critical to the survival ofalmost 50 endangered and threatened species (26animal and 22 plant species) protected by the feder-al or State Endangered Species Acts. See Table 2-1for a complete list of federal and state protectedspecies found in and around the Estuary.

In addition to state and federally listed species,the Bay Area is home to 16 fish and wildlife speciesand 13 plant species associated with wetlands thatare candidate or proposed candidate species for fed-eral endangered or threatened status. Of the fish andwildlife species, 15 of 16 candidates are associated

with wetlands. Enhancementand restoration of wetlandsthroughout the region willbenefit the populations ofmost of these species.

The number of special-status species resident in orusing Bay wetlands demon-strates the crucial impor-tance of these areas, theirlevel of degradation, and theoverwhelming need to hastenrestoration efforts.

Shorebirds. Shorebirds areamong the most conspicuouswildlife of the North and Southbays. Thirty-eight species of wintering and migratoryshorebirds were found in the

Bay between 1988 and 1995 on surveys performed bythe Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO). Totalnumbers of shorebirds on these surveys ranged from340,000–396,000 in the fall, 281,000–343,000 in thewinter, to 589,000–838,000 in the spring. Approxi-mately two-thirds of the migrating and winteringshorebirds occurred in the South Bay.

According to the United States ShorebirdConservation Plan, San Francisco Bay is used byhigher proportions of wintering and migratingshorebirds within the U.S. Pacific coast wetland sys-tem than any other coastal wetland. Depending onthe season, San Francisco Bay accounted for the fol-lowing percentages of shorebirds in the wetlands ofthe contiguous U.S. Pacific Coast on the PRBO sur-veys: black-bellied plover, 55–62%; semipalmatedplover, 40–52%; black-necked stilt, 58–90%;


Canvasbacks take flight on Suisun Marsh. CENTRAL VALLEY HABITAT JOINT VENTURE,1995

Black-necked stilts are among the many shorebirds that win-ter in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. MARK RAUZON

American avocet, 86–96%; greater yellowlegs,26–41%; willet, 57–69%; long-billed curlew, 45–65%;marbled godwit, 46–68%; red knot, 39–76%; westernsandpiper, 54–68%; least sandpiper, 39–73%; dunlin,24–38%; and dowitcher, 49–72%.

Tidal flats, salt ponds, diked seasonal wet-lands, grazed uplands and, to a limited extent, saltmarshes are the chief habitats of shorebirds at theSan Francisco Bay. Species making the heaviest use

of tidal flats include black-bellied plover, willet, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, western sandpiper,least sandpiper, dunlin, and short-billed dowitcher.Species making heaviest use of salt ponds includesnowy plover, black-necked stilt, American avocet,northern phalarope, and Wilson’s phalarope. Blackoystercatchers nest on the rocky shores of someislands in the Bay. Snowy plover, federally listed as athreatened species, killdeer, black-necked stilt, and


Table 2-1Threatened and Endangered Species of the San Francisco Bay EstuaryPlant and animal species listed under the Federal and/or State Endangered Species Acts

Species (T=Threatened, E=Endangered) Scientific Name

MammalsSalt marsh harvest mouse (E) Reithrodontomys raviventrisSteller sea lion (T) Eumetopias jubatus

BirdsTule greater white-fronted goose (T) Anser albifrons gambelliCalifornia brown pelican (E) Pelecanus occidentalisWestern snowy plover (T) Charadrius alexandrinus nivosusCalifornia clapper rail (E) Rallus longirostris obsoletusCalifornia black rail (T) Laterallus jamaicensis corturniculusCalifornia least tern (E) Sterna antillarum browniAleutian Canada goose (T) Branta canadensis leucopareia

Amphibians and ReptilesSan Francisco garter snake (E) Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataeniaGiant garter snake (T) Thamnophis gigasCalifornia red-legged frog (T) Rana aurora draytonii

FishChinook salmon (E) Oncorhynchus tshawytschaCoho salmon (T) Oncorhynchus kisutchSteelhead (E) Oncorhynchus mykissSacramento splittail (T) Pogonichthys macrolepidotusTidewater goby (E) Eucyclogobius newberryiDelta smelt (T) Hypomesus transpacificus

InvertebratesBehren’s silverspot butterfly (E) Speyeria zerene behrensiiCalifornia freshwater shrimp (E) Syncaris pacificaConservancy fairy shrimp (E) Branchinecta conservatioMyrtle’s silverspot butterfly (E) Speyeria zerene myrtleaeCallippe silverspot butterfly (E) Speyeria callippe callippeDelta green ground beetle (T) Elaphrus viridisValley elderberry longhorn beetle (T) Desmocerus californicus dimorphusVernal pool fairy shrimp (T) Branchinecta lynchiVernal pool tadpole shrimp (E) Lepidurus packardi

PlantsSuisun thistle (E) Cirsium hydrophilum hydrophilumSoft bird’s-beak (E) Cordylanthus mollis mollisKenwood Marsh checkermallow (E) Sidalcea oregana valida

Source: Baylands Habitat Goals, (1999); Life on the Edge, (1995)

American avocet nest in the salt ponds. Killdeer,black-necked stilt, and American avocet also nest inthe managed diked marshes of Suisun Bay.

Because of the great shorebird numbers, theWestern Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Networkhas classified San Francisco Bay as a site of “Hemi-spheric Importance” for shorebirds—the highestpossible ranking.

Marsh Birds, Gulls, and Terns. The San FranciscoBay Estuary provides nesting habitat for a variety ofmarsh birds including snowy egret, great egret,black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, andCalifornia clapper rail. In 1990, it was estimated that350 pairs of great egrets were breeding in the SanFrancisco Bay, along with 160 breeding pairs of greatblue herons.

California clapper rails, a Federally listedspecies currently found only in San Francisco Bay,are among the most inconspicuous wildlife of theNorth and South bays, but are a good indicator ofthe health of Bay wetlands. Clapper rails occur pri-marily in emergent salt and brackish tidal marsh-lands having intricate networks of slough channels,and vegetation dominated by pickleweed and Pacificcordgrass. The total population size is currentlyestimated at around 1,200. Clapper rails were for-merly more numerous and ranged more widely.

Numerous human-related factors over the past150 years have caused their decline. These includehunting in the late 1800s and, more recently, preda-tion by non-native predators and habitat loss.Presently, California clapper rail populations arerestricted to fragmented marshes that are small insize, and lack a significant transition zone to terres-trial habitat that would buffer them from nearbyurban and industrial development. Habitat goalscalling for the restoration of significant amounts oftidal salt marsh habitat in the Bay would immedi-ately and directly benefit clapper rails by allowingmovement of individuals between isolated popula-tions and recolonization of unutilized habitat.

An extensive variety of other “colonial nestingbirds” are common in the San Francisco BayEstuary. These include western gull, California gull,Forster’s tern, Caspian tern, and double-crested cor-morant.

Raptors. Marshes, tidal flats, and grasslands provideexcellent feeding habitat for the northern harrierand other raptors. Other wetland-associated raptorsinclude merlin, peregrine falcon, red-tailed hawk,short-eared owl, black-shouldered kite, and burrow-ing owl. The bald eagle is rare, but it nests nearreservoirs and lakes, and preys on waterfowl andcoots. Loss of habitat is an enormous threat to rap-tors in the Bay Area.

Other Marine Birds. Open waters, large lakes, andsalt ponds provide habitat for loons, pelicans, andgrebes. Grebes found in the study area are the pied-billed grebe, eared grebe, horned grebe, Clark’sgrebe, and western grebe. Large open-water habitatsof the Estuary such as bays, lagoons, salt ponds, anddiked habitats are fall and winter habitats forCalifornia brown and the American white pelicans.

Migratory Songbirds. Over 50 species of songbirdsmake use of the remnant riparian zones around theBay. Among them are flycatchers, sparrows, thrush-es, woodpeckers, warblers, vireos, and swallows.Salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes house thesalt marsh yellowthroat. Song sparrows utilize tidalsalt and brackish marshes, and the tricolored black-bird is a resident of freshwater wetlands. Thesebirds are also affected by habitat loss; the number oftricolored blackbirds has diminished by 89 percentsince the 1930s, and only 6,000 pairs of Suisun songsparrow remain in the Bay Area.


Least bittern SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE

Mammals. The most abundant marine mammalassociated with wetlands and deepwater habitats ofthe Estuary is the harbor seal. This species usestidal salt marshes and mudflats for breeding andhauling out, and deepwater habitats for foraging.The sea lion is another important marine mammal ofthe San Francisco Bay, while elephant seals andhumpback whales are significant species of the SanFrancisco/San Mateo coast. Tidal marshes providehabitat for the Suisun shrew, salt marsh wanderingshrew, and salt marsh harvest mouse.

Amphibians and Reptiles. Inhabiting Delta chan-nels, small rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, and season-al wetlands are a wide variety of amphibians andreptiles. Several federally and/or state listedspecies are among them, including the Californiatiger salamander and the California red-legged frog.Among listed reptiles dependent on riparian habi-tat is the San Francisco garter snake; other riparianresidents include the striped racer and the westernpond turtle.

Fish and Shellfish. Wetlands and deep waters ofthe study areas provide important habitat for awide variety of fish and shellfish. Salt marshes andshallow water areas provide habitat for larval,juvenile, and adult fishes and shellfish includingshiner perch, top smelt, staghorn sculpin, stripedbass, and bay shrimp. Intertidal and sub-tidalareas of the North Bay serve as important spawn-ing areas for Pacific herring. Important commercialand sport fishes that utilize deepwater habitats

include northern anchovy, starry flounder, stripedbass, king salmon, sturgeon, steelhead, and Ameri-can shad.

Benefits of Wetland Restoration and Enhancement

Wetlands and riparian areas in the Bay Area areimportant oases of life set against the backdrop ofthe arid west. However, the value of wetlands andriparian habitats extends beyond the animal andplant communities they support. And while these areprofoundly important, as the prior chapter suggests,there are a myriad of other supportive functions thatmagnify their significance. These complementaryvalues underscore the rationale and need for pro-tecting and restoring wetlands. Riparian and wetlandhabitats play key roles in maintaining both a healthyecosystem and an economically vibrant region.Among these vital “ecological services” are theircapacity to absorb or buffer floodwaters, cleansepollutants from runoff, reduce sediment loads inrunoff, recharge overdrawn groundwater supplies,and contribute to a community’s identity and recre-ational amenities. Wetlands offer a broad range ofnon-biological benefits that include:

• Reduced flood damage. Wetlands can not onlyserve as biofilters but can also slow down andsoak up water that runs off the land. This capaci-ty can lower the volume of floodwaters anddiminish flood heights, thereby reducing shore-line and stream bank erosion. Preserving naturalwetlands can reduce or eliminate the need forexpensive flood control structures.

• Economic values—Food and related industries.The vast majority of our nation’s fishing andshellfishing industries harvest wetland-depend-ent species. This catch is valued at $15 billion a


Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) JOHN INASE

Striped bass LEE ADAIR

year. The economic benefits of wetlands alsoextend to other forms of commercial harvest-ing—in the case of the South Bay, shell mining.The South Bay formerly had one of the nation’smost productive oyster beds, its harvest servingmuch of the West Coast.

• Water quality enhancement. Wetlands can helpimprove water quality by filtering nutrients, organ-ic particles, and sediment carried by runoff. Manychemicals—fertilizers, human and householdwastes, toxic compounds—are tied to sedimentsthat can be trapped in wetlands. Plants and biolog-ical processes in wetlands break down and con-vert these pollutants into less harmful substances.

• Increased groundwater availability. Wetlandscan absorb water during and after rainfall. Someof this precipitation percolates into the ground-water supply. Hence, wetlands often do the vitaljob of recharging groundwater by passively“banking” water for use at a later date.

• Recreation. Wetlands also contribute to the econ-omy through recreational activities such as fish-ing, hunting, and bird watching. It is estimatedthat the annual economic value of wetlands state-wide in California is between $6.3 and $22.9 billion

(Habitat Goals, page 31). The 1996 National Surveyof Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-AssociatedRecreation reported that 3.1 million adult Ameri-cans hunt migratory birds including geese,ducks, doves, and other game birds. Nationwideit is estimated that hunters spend about $1.3 bil-lion on travel, equipment, and other associatedexpenses.

• Aesthetic and scenic values. The natural beautyand solitude of wetland areas provide opportuni-ties for bird watching, wildlife photography,painting, hiking, and simply relaxing while appre-ciating the wonders of nature. Wetlands are a vitalpart of lives, providing a peaceful place to reflectwhile offering respite from everyday stresses.

• Education and research. Tidal, coastal, andinland wetlands of the Bay Area provide educa-tional opportunities for nature observation andscientific study.

• Historic and archaeological values. Some wet-lands are of archaeological interest. In the SanFrancisco Bay region Indian settlements wereoften located in coastal and inland wetlands,especially at the mouths of creeks. Estuaries wererich sources of fish and shellfish.

• Community identity and vitality. The presenceof wetlands in a city or town strengthens its senseof identity and place. Wetlands and creeks help togive positive and vivid definition to a community,offering tangible indicators of the “quality of life”values that are increasingly important to the res-idents of a growing metropolis, yet are degradedby the homogenizing effects of urban sprawl.Likewise, they help define the urban edges byproviding physical separators between towns.Collectively, they confer a natural character andpresence within an urban area. Wetlands areessential to the identity and vitality of the Bayregion and its continued desirability as a place tolive and work.

• Estuary support. Wetlands provide importantnutrients to near-shore waters from decomposingvegetation, which provides support for coastalfood webs.

Subregional Characteristics

As previously described, the SFBJV has divided itsgeographic scope into five subregions: Suisun, North


Family fishing at Marin Headlands DON COPPOCK

Bay, Central Bay, South Bay, and the San Francisco/San Mateo Coast (Figure 1-1). These subregions coin-cide with those used by the Habitat Goals Project,with a few exceptions. The fifth subregion is the SanFrancisco/San Mateo Coast.

The subregions vary greatly in their habitatcomposition. In general, the North Bay and SuisunSubregions have the greatest areas of tidal marshesand moist grasslands/vernal pools, together pos-sessing more than 70 percent of the region’s habitatsof these types. The South Bay contains the over-whelming majority of riparian willow groves, andabout 50 percent of the mudflats. Figure 2-3 summa-rizes the subregional distribution of the estuary’smajor habitat types.

The following section provides a geographicand ecological overview of each of these five sub-regions, focusing on characteristics and status oftheir habitats.

North Bay Subregion

The North Bay subregion consists of the submergedlands, wetlands, and uplands of San Pablo Bay. It isbounded to the east by the Carquinez Strait, whichconnects it to the Suisun subregion just upstream.Downstream it abuts the Central Bay subregion atPoint San Pedro. The boundary climbs to the ridge-line of the East Bay hills and follows the ridgeline of


Figure 2-3 Habitat Types by Subregion

SuisunNorth Bay

Central Bay

South Bay

100%

50

0

100

50

0

100

50

0

100

50

0

Gra

ssla

nd

/VP

C

Tid

al F

lat

Tid

al M

arsh

Will

ow

Gro

ve

Suisun

North Bay

Central Bay

South Bay

Source: Bay Area EcoAtlas Modern View ©1999 SFEI

the watersheds draining north to the CarquinezStrait (a line roughly parallel to and north of Highway24). Its major watercourses include the Napa River,Sonoma Creek, Petaluma River, Novato Creek, andGallinas Creek. This subregion includes all of SolanoCounty, and portions of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, andContra Costa Counties.

Historically, this subregion was characterizedby broad expanses of shallow bays and brackish tidalmarshes that received substantial amounts of runofffrom many local streams draining narrow valleysbetween ridges of low hills. Major creeks and riversalso ran to the Bay and still do. These include thePetaluma and Napa Rivers in Sonoma and Napacounties, Green Valley Creek in Solano County, andWalnut, Wildcat, and San Pablo creeks in ContraCosta County. The uplands and the relatively flatlands near the Bay often have a high clay content,providing soils suitable for grasslands and oaksavannas.

There have been significant changes to thelandscape of the North Bay, as elsewhere in the BayArea. Most of the tidal marsh that once ringed theNorth Bay has been converted to farmlands or saltponds. The riparian habitat and water quality ofcreeks have been degraded by many decades ofgrazing and woodcutting, but many riparian restora-tion projects are under way to reduce erosion andenhance habitat values within a farming context.Restoration of major floodplains, such as that of theNapa River, is an emerging hallmark of this region,with even larger projects contemplated in thefuture. The Bay margins of Marin present significantopportunities to restore diked baylands to tidal

action. There are several thousand acres of poten-tial salt marsh restoration among the “MarinBaylands.” The former Hamilton Airfield is presentlybeing restored to marshlands. This scale of renew-ing wetlands within a metropolitan context isunprecedented. Other Marin Baylands also presentunique conservation opportunities—particularly ascomponent sites in the expansion of the San PabloBay National Wildlife Refuge. The Fish and WildlifeService is moving forward on plans for this pro-posed expansion.

Suisun Subregion

The Suisun subregion is located in Solano andContra Costa counties and extends from nearChipps Island on the Sacramento River downstreamto the Carquinez Bridge. Suisun Marsh is on thenorth side of the Sacramento River. It is important tonote that below the 10-foot contour the marsh ispart of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture’s geo-graphic scope. The Contra Costa shoreline is on thesouth side. Its major watercourses include theSacramento River, and Green Valley, Solano, andWalnut Creeks.

On the Solano side, there are still vernal poolsand moist grasslands on the fringes of Suisun Marsh,particularly to the east and north. A prominent remnant of this seasonal wetland complex is theJepson Prairie Reserve, east of Fairfield in SolanoCounty.

On the Contra Costa side, brackish tidalmarshes along the shoreline extend into the lower

reaches of the major tribu-taries. These marshes areparticularly extensive in theWalnut Creek watershed,which also supports someremnant riparian forest in itstributaries.

Comparing historical topresent conditions in thissubregion, deep bay and shal-low bay habitats havedeclined from about 41,000acres to about 34,000 acres.Much of this change is due tosediment deposits fromSierra Nevada mining in themid-19th century. Some of thedeeper areas have becomeshallow bay, and some of theshallow areas have becometidal flats. Tidal marsh has


A Petaluma River bank is the graveyard of a grain scow that plied the waters in the19th century. JOHN STEERE

also declined significantly in this area. Much of theloss came from tidal marsh being converted to man-aged marsh to provide habitat for wintering water-fowl. These marshes also provide habitat for shore-birds and other wetland-associated wildlife. Themajority of privately-owned managed marshes inthe area are used for duck hunting in the fall andwinter. Private landowners have taken the lead inassuring the protection of the Suisun Marsh.

Adjacent to the baylands, farming and otheractivities have affected most of the moist grasslandhabitat and about one-third of grasslands with ver-nal pools. Farming and stream channelization havegreatly reduced the area of riparian vegetation andwillow groves.

On the Contra Costa shoreline, most of thetidal marshes have been diked, initially for farming.Some have been filled for industrial uses such as oilrefining and power generation. Riparian vegetationhas been stripped from many of the streams. This ismost apparent in the heavily urbanized WalnutCreek/San Ramon watershed, where many miles ofstream channel have been straightened, widened,and lined with concrete.

Central Bay Subregion

The Central Bay subregion includes submergedlands, wetlands, uplands, and the main body of SanFrancisco Bay. It extends along the west shore fromPoint San Pedro to Coyote Point, and along the east

shore from Point San Pablo tothe San Leandro Marina. It fol-lows the northern edge of thecreeks (Crow Creek, AlamoCreek, etc.) that drain theinterior of Contra Costa andAlameda Counties south toAlameda Creek. This regionincludes portions of SanFrancisco, Marin, ContraCosta, Alameda, and SanMateo Counties.

Historically, steep water-sheds draining into broadalluvial fans characterizedthis region. At their baysidemargins, there were smallpockets of tidal marshland,sandy beaches, and naturallagoons, all fed by relativelysmall drainages, with similar-ly scaled areas of tidal flatsand tidal marshes. The near-

Bay habitats in this sub-region reflect the proximityof the ocean more than the other subregions, withstrong marine influence showing in the subtidal andintertidal plant and animal communities. Histori-cally there were few prairies, as there is less flatland between the old marsh line and the hills, butthere were relatively more moist grasslands than inother subregions. The hills, being of mixed geologicorigin and receiving coastal fog, were formerly dom-inated by oak woodlands with occasional stands ofredwood.

Today, this subregion is one of the most urban-ized, with three-quarters of its baylands filled. Tidal


A managed marsh meets a riparian willow grove in the South Bay. JOSH COLLINS

Many Central Bay wetlands have been filled by industrial,commercial, or residential development. PORT OF OAKLAND

marsh acreage has been reduced by over 90 percent,and tidal flat acreage by 70 percent. Large areas ofinterior open space are protected, e.g. the water-shed lands of the San Francisco Water Departmentand East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the park-lands of the East Bay Regional Park District.However, most of the flatland areas of this subregionhave been significantly modified. Restoration hasoccurred on a variety of fronts, but has generallyhad to adapt to the highly urban influences. Unusualrestoration projects have been accomplished,including the “daylighting” (opening) of several cul-verted streams, and restoration of old sewagesludge ponds into marshes.

South Bay Subregion

The South Bay subregion includes the submergedlands, wetlands, and uplands from the southernedges of the Central Bay subregion south to the lim-its of the watersheds feeding the Bay. It abuts theCentral Bay subregion on the west shore at CoyotePoint and on the east shore at the San LeandroMarina. It gets less rainfall than the other subre-gions, and has few major streams; the largestinclude Alameda, Coyote, San Francisquito, SanMateo, and Stevens Creeks. This region includes allof Santa Clara County and portions of Alameda andSan Mateo Counties.

Historically, this subre-gion was characterized bybroad bands of mudflats andtidal marshes on either side ofthe Bay. Between the tidalcreeks were many salt marshponds or pans. Near themouth of San Leandro Creekon the East Bay shoreline wasa complex of large natural saltponds, named Crystal SaltPond on historical maps. Thisfeature was apparently formedby a beach ridge or swash bar,and was a precursor of thesubregion’s man-made saltponds. Along the periphery ofthe baylands were wet grass-lands, and a large area withvernal pools lay near WarmSprings.

Evaporation exceedsprecipitation in the South Bay by a two to one ratio, pro-

ducing less freshwater runoff and much drier condi-tions than in the other subregions. The geology ofthe South Bay also includes more sand and graveldeposits than the other subregions, resulting inbroad alluvial valleys, once dominated by giantsycamores and other riparian vegetation. Theuplands were dominated by shrubs or, at higher ele-vations, woodlands.

This subregion still contains broad valleys withflats adjacent to the Bay, but many have been con-verted to non-habitat uses. Silicon Valley and urban-ization have supplanted the orchards that once cov-ered many of the valleys. Nearly all the moist grass-lands are gone and much of the riparian vegetationhas been removed. Tidal marshes were too saline foragriculture, so they were converted to salt ponds.Sewage treatment facilities, landfills, residential andindustrial uses also reduced the area of natural bay-lands habitats. Restoration projects of many typesare taking place in this subregion, from tidal marshesto riparian woodlands. Watershed planning initiativeshave been particularly active in this subregion.

San Francisco/San Mateo Coast Subregion

The San Francisco/San Mateo Coast subregionincludes the western side of San Francisco and SanMateo Counties, from the submerged and intertidallands of the Pacific Ocean to the crest of the coastal


25,000 acres of Cargill Salt Ponds rim the South Bay; 19,000 acres are now availablefor sale to federal and State agencies. BOB WALKER

range. This subregion has sim-ilarities to the Central Bay, inthat it is characterized byshort, steep watersheds thatlead to pockets of tidal marshwith strong marine influences.However, the Pacific coast isdistinguished by its beauty,prominent rural qualities, andvariety of plant communitiesand wetlands. Tidal and sea-sonal wetlands on the coasttend to be smaller in scalethan those of the Baylands;they are frequently less thanan acre in size. This subregionis a study in dramatic con-trasts, with the heavily devel-oped coastal area of SanFrancisco giving way to therural and relatively wild seg-ments of coastline in SanMateo County. While coastalwetlands are small, the variable topography of thecoastline and the scattering of offshore rocks has ledto a complex mosaic of marine habitats in the inter-tidal zones. Streams lined with willow thickets forminto lagoons; these are generally behind beachesthat fan out along the margins where the creeks enterthe ocean. Inland from the bluffs that characterizethe majority of the San Mateo coast, are coastal ter-races that are primarily in intensive agriculture,while the adjacent slopes of the coastal range areclad in evergreen and mixed hardwood forests.

This portion of the Joint Venture’s regionalscope retains many intact habitats. Over 75 percent

of the land remains wooded—from the redwood andDouglas fir forests found in many of the seawardwatersheds, to the hardwoods along the small, butwell vegetated streams, to the pocket marshes nearthe coast, to the patches of coastal scrub communi-ties near the bluffs and creeks. Restoration work hasbeen occurring in some of the watersheds andstream channels. However, grazing and farmingpractices have been causing excessive sedimenta-tion in the coastal streams, impairing their fisheriescapacity, particularly for salmon, causing siltationeven in several coastal lagoons and marshes thathave been protected in state parks.

Categorizing Wetland Habitats in San Francisco Bay

The habitat categories developed by the SFBJV arebased largely on the extensive and historical ecologi-cal research for the Estuary that was completed bythe San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands EcosystemGoals Project (Goals Project.) Contributors to thisproject, led by researchers at the San FranciscoEstuary Institute (SFEI), with participating scientistsfrom many disciplines, institutions, and agencies,developed a comprehensive set of habitat categoriesfor the Bay and its environs. These were mapped ashabitat types in the Goals Project. They include 14 cat-


An urban wetlands quilt: South Bay salt ponds, looking North toward Bair Island BRADY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

Cowell Ranch Beach along the San Mateo Coast DON COPPOCK

egories of wetlands—tidal flats, tidal marshes andmuted tidal marshes, beaches, lagoons, salt ponds,agricultural baylands, diked/managed wetlands,moist grasslands, grassland/vernal pool complexes,creeks, perennial ponds, and riparian forests and wil-low groves. See Appendix D for descriptions of each ofthese habitat types. The SFBJV has refined these cat-egories into 10 “tracked habitats,” which refers to spe-cific groupings of habitat types whose conditions willbe periodically monitored. Figure 3-1 in the followingchapter shows how the Goals Project classificationstranslate into the tracked habitats of the SFBJV.

The pattern of habitat simplification over timeis indicative of how much wetlands in the Bay Areahave been altered by human activity. The humanmodification of the Baylands (the area once exposedto daily tidal action) that began during the mid-1800s with diking tidal areas to create agriculturallands, salt ponds, managed marshes, and uplandshas drastically changed the mix of habitats in theregion. It has created a curious patchwork of man-made habitats that do provide some biologicalvalue, but lack the diversity found in the complexmosaics of their natural predecessors.


Setting Goals for Regional WetlandProtection and Restoration

Setting Goals for Regional WetlandProtection and Restoration

Process and Methodology forEstablishing Acreage Goals

The Implementation Strategy is derived from theSan Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem

Goals Project (Goals Project.) Many of the individu-als who worked on the Habitat Goals also served onthe San Francisco Bay Joint Venture ImplementationStrategy Committee to shape the SFBJV’s acreagemethodology and goals. Beginning in mid-1998 mem-bers of the Implementation Strategy Committeebegan working with scientists from the SanFrancisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to adapt the GoalsProject to the needs of the SFBJV’s habitat goals.The idea was to use its carefully derived projectionsof regional wetlands objectives as a framework forthe wetlands classifications and goals of the SFBJV.This required three adaptations of the Goals Project:1) reduction of its implicit longer-term time frame toa more practical horizon; 2) revision of the geo-graphic scope to accommodate the Joint Venture’sgeographic boundaries (which exclude the SuisunMarsh and include San Mateo coastal areas); and 3)a simplification of the Goals Project’s 14-categoryclassification into the Joint Venture’s three habitatcategories.

This last adaptation required a two-stepprocess: translating the Goals Project’s habitat cate-gories into the Joint Venture’s “tracked habitats”

and, in turn, combining these to create three habitatgoal categories for this Implementation Strategy.The three consist of 1) Bay Habitats, 2) SeasonalWetlands, and 3) Creeks and Lakes. These cate-gories will serve as the primary measures of SFBJVin meeting its objectives for wetland acquisition,restoration, and enhancement. Figure 3-1 summa-rizes this classification process, showing how theGoals Project categories map onto the three JointVenture habitat goals.

The methodology and process behind theJoint Venture’s goals for wetlands acquisition,restoration and enhancement are summarized in the“Goals Setting Worksheets,” Appendix E.

Habitat Goals for the SanFrancisco Bay Joint Venture

The long-term vision for wetlands of the SanFrancisco Bay Estuary presented in Habitat Goals hasserved as an excellent template for defining the JointVenture’s habitat goals, which can also be regardedas milestones of the Goals Project. The GeographicInformation System–based mapping and analysis ofthe historic extent of wetlands in Habitat Goals pro-vided a reliable foundation for developing the JointVenture’s habitat goals. SFEI researchers who

3

LIZA RIDDLE


Figure 3-1San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Habitat Classification

Regional Goals Project Joint Venture Joint VentureHabitat Types Tracked Habitat Types Goals Categories

Tidal Flat, Bay-AssociatedTidal Flat

Tidal Flat, Channel-Associated

Young, Low/Mid-Elevation Tidal MarshYoung, High-Elevation Tidal Marsh

Tidal MarshOld, High-Elevation Tidal MarshMuted Tidal Marsh

Bay Habitats Beach Beach

Lagoon Lagoon

Inactive Salt PondLow Salinity Salt PondMedium Salinity Salt Pond Salt PondHigh Salinity Salt PondSalt Crystallizer

Storage/Treatment PondDiked Marsh Diked WetlandManaged Marsh

Farmed Bayland Seasonal WetlandRuderal Bayland

Grassland and Grazed Bayland

Associated WetlandsMoist GrasslandGrassland/Vernal Pool Complex

Creek Creeks

Perennial Pond Lakes and Ponds Creeks, Lakes, & Ponds

Riparian ForestWillow Grove

Riparian zone

prepared the Habitat Goals first identified acreageestimates for historic and current coverage of wet-lands. These acreages, displayed in Table 3-1, wereadapted to determine the “Past” (historic) and“Present” (current) areas of the wetland habitatswithin the geographic scope of the SFBJV.

The acreages presented in this table are rea-sonably accurate for the Baylands and within aradius of three miles of the Bay. Beyond this zone,the SFBJV used acreage estimates derived from

reviews of topographic and soils maps, so these fig-ures are far less precise. The goals for creek andriparian zones are based on perennial streamlengths, with acreage estimates derived from aver-aging the widths of riparian forest habitat from eightexisting riparian corridors in the North, Central, andSouth Bays. The average riparian zone was deter-mined to extend approximately 20 meters from eachbank. Creek and riparian zone acreage was thus cal-culated by multiplying a creek’s length by 40 meters.

Source: SFBJV (1999)

Table 3-2 presents the habitat goals by thethree broad categories of habitats discussed above.These goals were reviewed and revised by theSFBJV’s Implementation Strategy Committee, andserve to encompass the tracked habitats and signifi-cantly simplify the tasks of monitoring progresstoward the goals without misrepresenting the wet-land values or functions underlying them. As previ-ously noted, these goals assume a 20-year timelinefor accomplishment.

In order to elucidate the SFBJV’s habitat goals,it is important to make a clear distinction betweenrestoration, defined as the conversion of one habitattype to another (e.g., diked baylands to tidal wet-lands), and enhancement, which is the improvementin the functioning and biological diversity of anexisting habitat.

Table 3-3 displays the future projections foreach of the habitat types in the Baylands and nearbyareas by subregion, again using the Goals Project asan analytic framework.

The Goals Project uses the past acreage figuresdisplayed in Table 3-1 as target goals for acquisition,restoration, and enhancement within a 50- to 100-yeartimeframe. To accommodate the SFBJV’s 20-yearframework, the Implementation Strategy Committeedetermined that, as a rule for acquisition and restora-tion categories, the SFBJV would seek to accomplish75 percent of the long-term goals of the Goals Project.The Committee set goals for enhancement at 50 per-cent of total habitat goals for the long term. Specificacreage goals were not set for uplands associatedwith wetlands. However, the Joint Venture recognizesthe importance of adjacent upland habitat to provide

nesting cover, foraging areas, refuge from predators,and a buffer from incompatible uses. The general rulestates that adjacent upland habitat will be protectedin the form of buffer zones wherever possible.

Within the SFBJV’s 20-year horizon for accom-plishing its goals, The Joint Venture will review andrevise its Implementation Strategy at approximatelyfive-year intervals.

How Waterfowl Will Benefit from the Implementation Strategy

Introduction. The San Francisco Estuary is animportant migration and wintering refuge for water-fowl in the Pacific Flyway. It supports a diverseassortment of waterfowl, including over 20 duckspecies. More ducks winter in the San FranciscoEstuary than in the much larger Chesapeake Bay(Harvey et al. 1992). The North American WaterfowlManagement Plan (NAWMP) identified San FranciscoBay as one of 34 “Waterfowl Habitat Areas of MajorConcern.” According to the NAWMP Concept Plan forWaterfowl Habitat Protection, San Francisco Bay, Cali-fornia, ducks in San Francisco Bay comprised five to13 percent of California’s total duck population dur-ing midwinter inventories from 1984 to 1989. SanFrancisco Bay’s open waters are of primary impor-tance to diving and sea ducks; almost one-half ofCalifornia’s diving ducks are found in San FranciscoBay (Accurso 1992). Midwinter percentages ofPacific Flyway waterfowl populations using San

Chapter 3—Setting Goals for Regional Wetland Protection and Restoration 25

Table 3-1San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Tracked Habitats Summary

SFBJV Habitat SFBJV Tracked Past Present Total PresentGoals Categories Habitat Categories (acres) (acres) (acres)

Bay Habitats Tidal Flat 49,000 28,000Tidal Marsh 125,000 32,000Lagoon 80 4,000 98,070Beach 200 70Salt Pond 1,500 34,000

Seasonal Wetlands Diked Wetland 0 18,000Grassland and 71,000

Associated Wetland84,000 53,000

Creeks, Lakes and Ponds Lake NA 12,000 14,500Creek & Riparian Zone 69,000 2,500

Source: SFEI, Habitat Goals, (July, 1999)


Table 3-2Habitat Goals for the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture

SFBJV Habitats SFBJV Tracked Habitat Goals (acres) SFBJV Habitat Goal Categories (acres)1

Habitat Goal Tracked Categories Habitats Aquire2 Restore2 Enhance Acquire3 Restore Enhance

Bay Habitats Tidal Marshes 43,000 32,000 20,000Tidal Flats 12,000 4,000 6,000Lagoons 1,500 50 1,500 63,000 37,000 35,000Beaches 113 60 35Salt Ponds 6,000 1,000 7,500

Seasonal Diked 16,000 6,000 12,000Wetlands Wetlands

Grasslands 21,000 1,000 11,500 37,000 7,000 23,000and Assoc. Wetlands

Creeks and Lakes 3,000 1,000 6,000Lakes Creeks and 4,000 4,000 16,000 7,000 5,000 22,000

Riparian Zones

Notes: 1. Numbers are to the nearest thousand. 2. Numbers are double-counted in instances where restoration takesplace on acquired land. 3. SFBJV is a nonregulatory entity, and thus acquisition goals reflect working cooperativelywith a willing seller.

Sources and Significance

Tidal Marsh: Based on San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project (Goals Project) Historical andModern Tidal Marsh coverage, Goals Project regional ecological goals, estimate of currently protected lands, and esti-mate of potential 20-year accomplishments.

Tidal Flat: Based on Goals Project Historical and Modern Tidal Flat coverages, estimate of currently protected lands,assessment of required shorebird support, and estimate of potential 20-year accomplishments.

Lagoon: Based on Goals Project Historical and Modern Lagoon coverages, Goals Project regional ecological goals,estimate of currently protected lands, and estimate of potential 20-year accomplishments. Goal for restoration refersto natural lagoon-beach complexes.

Beach: Based on Goals Project Historical and Modern Beach coverages, estimate of currently protected lands, nar-rative recommendations of Goals Project, and estimate of potential 20-year accomplishments.

Salt Pond: Based on Goals Project Historical and Modern Salt Pond coverages, Goals Project regional ecologicalgoals, estimate of currently protected lands, and estimate of potential 20-year accomplishments.

Diked Wetlands: Based on Goals Project Historical and Modern Diked Wetland and Storage/Treatment Pond cover-ages, Goals Project regional ecological goals, estimate of currently protected lands, and estimate of potential 20-yearaccomplishments.

Grasslands and Associated Wetlands: Based on Goals Project Historical and Modern Moist Grassland and Grassland/Vernal Pool Complex coverages, Goals Project regional ecological goals for Agricultural Baylands, goal of no net lossof existing moist grasslands and grassland/vernal pool complexes, estimate of currently protected lands, and esti-mate of potential 20-year accomplishments.

Lakes: Based on Goals Project Historical Perennial Pond coverages, modern mapping by National Wetland Inventory,estimate of currently protected lands, and estimate of potential 20-year accomplishments.

Creek and Riparian Zones: Based on estimates of historical amount of natural creek channel using the Goals ProjectHistorical Rivers and Creeks coverage. Estimated from existing channels using USGS 100,000 Digital Line GraphHydrology Files; estimate of existing natural creek channel using Goals Project Modern Riparian Forest coverage,analysis of average riparian width (of about 20 meters to a side), and estimate of potential 20-year accomplishments.Goal of 4,000 acres represents 25 percent of the approximately 16,000 acres of existing channel on the flatlands, ofwhich 800 acres are estimated to be natural, based upon the amount of existing Riparian Forest (770 acres or 16 acresper mile).

Francisco Bay (mean of 1955–1999 surveys) include24 percent of surf scoter, 44 percent of canvasback,and 46 percent of scaup. The Bay’s coastal wetlandsare used to a lesser extent by dabbling ducks, geese,and swans.

This plan reflects a broad restoration and con-servation effort developed in part from the BaylandsEcosystem Habitat Goals (1999), but is also intendedto be a framework to improve habitat for waterfowland other waterbirds. According to Expanding theVision: 1998 Update, North American WaterfowlManagement Plan, the continental populations ofmost waterfowl species have increased in recentyears, in some cases to record highs. However, threespecies, northern pintail and two species of scaup,

have markedly declined during the same period. Allof these species are found in substantial numbers inSan Francisco Bay. The Bay is particularly importantto scaup, as almost one-half of Pacific Flyway scaupwinter in San Francisco Bay (Table F-1, inAppendix).

Although San Francisco Bay scaup populationshave not declined in recent years, midwinter aerialwaterfowl surveys (conducted since the 1950s onopen bays and salt ponds) reveal substantialdeclines in abundance for some species, includingcanvasback and pintails (Table F-2). Canvasbackdeclines occurred in the early 1960s and mid-1970s.Pintail declines occurred in the mid-1960s, late1980s, and early 1990s.


Table 3-3San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Wetland Habitat Goals by SubregionSummary goals for the Bay Area as presented in Table 3-2, divided among the acreage objectives foreach of the five subregions of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture.

Subregions Bay Habitats Seasonal Wetlands Creeks and Lakes Total by Subregionby Goals Categories (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)

Suisun SubregionAcquire 3,000 11,00 250 15,000Restore 2,000 1,000 1,000 4,000Enhance 2,000 6,000 4,000 12,000

North Bay SubregionAcquire 23,000 18,000 250 42,000Restore 15,000 4,000 1,000 20,000Enhance 13,000 12,000 4,000 29,000

Central Bay SubregionAcquire 9,000 1,000 250 11,000Restore 4,000 0 1,000 5,000Enhance 4,000 1,000 3,000 8,000

South Bay SubregionAcquire 28,0001 7,000 500 38,000Restore 16,000 1,000 2,000 19,000Enhance 42,0001 4,000 11,000 57,000

San Francisco/San Mateo Coast2

Acquire TBD TBD TBD TBDRestore TBD TBD 3,000 3,000Enhance TBD TBD 5,000 5,000

Total Acreage by type 161,000 66,000 33,000 260,0003

Source: SFEI, Regional Habitat Goals, (July 1999)

Notes: 1. 25,000 acres of salt ponds are included in both acquisition and enhancement; as with other acquisitions,this assumes a willing seller. 2. The San Francisco/San Mateo wetland acreages appear as TBD or “To Be Determined,”since they have not been estimated. This subregion was not part of the Goals Project. 3. San Mateo/San FranciscoCoast acreages for Riparian Restoration and Enhancement are not part of the acreage totals, as they represent veryrough estimates that will need to be refined and peer reviewed.

The purpose of this section of the ImplementationStrategy is to:

• select a set of indicator species to represent theBay’s diverse waterfowl community

• review the significance of San Francisco Bay tothe Pacific Flyway and NAWMP

• establish habitat-related waterfowl populationgoals

• establish priorities for waterfowl habitat manage-ment and conservation for the SFBJV

• make habitat management recommendationswhich help achieve those goals.

Waterfowl Indicator Species

The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture has selected a set of seven key waterfowl indicator species, whichcollectively represent the 32 native waterfowlspecies of San Francisco Bay. Within broad cate-gories, such as the diving ducks, there are importantdifferences between species in habitat usage, migra-tory patterns, and breeding habitat. These subtle differences can be reflected in differences in thepopulation dynamics of the respective species (e.g.,Figures F-1 to F-3). Key indicator species identifiedare mallard, northern pintail, northern shoveler, canvasback, scaup (both greater and lesser), surfscoter, and ruddy duck. The list of indicator speciesis similar to that found inBaylands Ecosystem HabitatGoals (Habitat Goals). Specieswere selected to representthe range of habitats used bywaterfowl in the Bay. Con-sideration was also given towhether populations are ofPacific Flyway, and/or localsignificance.

Geese and Swans

Geese and swans are uncom-mon in San Francisco Bay.Tule geese were included on the Habitat Goals list, buthave not been included in theSan Francisco Bay Joint Ven-ture indicator list. This is

because in the San Francisco Bay Area they utilizeonly the Suisun Marsh; the Suisun Marsh was part ofthe focus area for the Goals Project but is notincluded within the SFBJV because it is part of theCentral Valley Habitat Joint Venture. Canada geesecomprise the only notable population of geese with-in the territory of the San Francisco Bay JointVenture. The resident population includes, but is notlimited to, approximately 100 pairs that nest in theNapa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area (Larry Wyckoff,CDFG, personal communication). The winteringpopulation includes a small flock of Aleutian Canadageese which uses a reservoir near Pinole.

Dabbling Ducks

Dabbling ducks comprise almost one-half of thewaterfowl in San Francisco Bay in early fall. Thisincludes the resident birds and early migrants suchas pintail. After the wintering diving ducks arrive,dabbling ducks account for only 8–30 percent of Baywaterfowl (Accurso 1992). Mallards use diked bay-lands and managed mashes extensively, and are themost abundant locally nesting ducks. Mallards arealso the species most prized by hunters. Mallardpopulations are representative of other locallybreeding dabbling ducks, such as gadwall and cinna-mon teal. Northern shoveler and northern pintail donot nest locally in significant numbers, but are two ofthe most abundant wintering dabbling duck species(Table 3-4). They are representative of other com-


Male pintail duck US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

mon wintering species, such as American widgeonand green-winged teal. In San Francisco Bay, north-ern shovelers are salt and sewage pond specialists.They are extremely abundant during December andJanuary, outnumbering all other dabbling duckscombined (Accurso 1992). Northern pintails use abroad range of habitats within the Bay, includingdiked wetland, open bay, salt ponds, and seasonalwetlands.

Diving and Sea Ducks

Diving ducks are the most numerous type of water-fowl in San Francisco Bay, and are what the Bay isrenowned for among waterfowl enthusiasts. Canvas-back and scaup represent the large diving ducksthat winter on the Bay. Scaup are the most abundantducks on San Francisco Bay (Table 3-4); through the

course of the winter, they total 36–68 percent of thetotal Bay waterfowl population (Accurso 1992). Thetwo species of scaup (greater and lesser) arelumped together because of their similar appear-ance as it is difficult to identify scaup to the specieslevel during aerial surveys. Although similar in size,canvasback and scaup have different habitatrequirements. Most canvasbacks are found in saltponds, particularly those in the North Bay, whilescaup more commonly utilize shallow open bayhabitats (Accurso 1992). Ecologically similar largerdiving ducks include common goldeneye, redhead,and ring-necked ducks. The ruddy duck representsthe small diving ducks that use managed marshesand salt ponds. The bufflehead is also in this group.The surf scoter is by far the most abundant speciesof sea duck in the Bay, and the second most abun-dant waterfowl species overall (Accurso 1992). Eco-logically similar species include white-winged and


Table 3-4 Peak Fall–Winter Aerial Survey Counts for Waterfowl Species in San Francisco Bay1

Species2 1987–88 1988–89 1989–90

GeeseCanada goose 64 76 183

Dabbling DucksGadwall 3,413 2782 1,526American widgeon 7,320 6096 3,701Mallard 506 695 702Blue-winged teal 0 0 2Cinnamon teal 333 317 174Northern shoveler 26,746 38,711 48,079Northern pintail 12,415 5,242 8,771Green-winged teal 1,989 313 430

Diving DucksCanvasback 20,235 24,153 29,818Redhead 1 3 3Ring-necked duck 0 0 1Scaup 89,599 131,448 139,214Scoter 53,763 43,263 61,248Bufflehead 2,780 7,094 5,373Goldeneye 97 920 909Merganser 102 140 107Ruddy duck 19,163 23,686 24,073

Total Waterfowl 201,846 260,858 284,439

Source: Accurso 19923

Notes: 1. Survey area does not include Suisun Marsh and Sacramento Delta.2. Species in italic type are key indicator species.3. This study was the most comprehensive waterfowl survey ever performed in San Francisco Bay, and comprisedbiweekly aerial surveys.

black scoters, as well as red-breasted mergansers,smaller populations of which occur in the Bay.

San Francisco Bay Waterfowl and the NAWMP

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan(NAWMP), written in 1986, set an ambitious goal ofreturning North American waterfowl populations tothe levels of the 1970s. The goal was based on breed-ing populations during average environmental con-ditions. Wintering populations were not explicitlyconsidered. This presents challenges for establish-ing goals in San Francisco Bay, which is overwhelm-ingly a waterfowl wintering rather than breedingarea. The implementation strategy of the SFBJV willnot significantly impact geese or swans, since usageof the Bay by these birds is very limited. The ducksof San Francisco Bay, however, are significant at theFlyway scale and thus important to the NAWMP.

Continental scaup populations are substan-tially lower than the NAWMP goals; even more dis-turbing is the fact that scaup are the only duckwhose continent-wide population trend from1986–1998 was decreasing (Expanding the Vision:1998 Update, North American Waterfowl Manage-ment Plan). Almost one-half of all scaup in thePacific Flyway use San Francisco Bay, so theimportance of this habitat cannot be overstated.Even as scaup decline continentally, they appear

to be increasing in SanFrancisco Bay (Figure F-1).The 1990s had the highestdecade average since mid-winter counts were initiatedin 1955 (Table F-2). Themigratory habits of scaupare not well documented. Wedo not know where most ofthe Bay’s scaup are breeding(John Takekawa, USGS-BRD,personal communication),nor do we know much abouttheir habitat usage patternsduring migration. Thus, win-tering is the only phase oftheir life cycle where habitatusage is well documented. Itis critical that we maintainand enhance that winteringhabitat.

Pintails are locally abun-dant in San Francisco Bay (Table 3-4), especially insalt ponds. There is a history of pintail use in theSouth Bay. They are one of the earliest arrivingmigrant species, so their use of the Bay is longerthan most. There appears to be little interchange ofSouth Bay pintails with the much larger CentralValley population; thus the South Bay pintails mayrepresent a distinct subpopulation (Miller in HabitatGoals). It is important to conserve such within-species metapopulation diversity. However, the totalcontribution of San Francisco Bay to the PacificFlyway pintail populations is minor.

Populations of several other diving duckspecies are of regional importance and concern.Though continentally canvasbacks are increasing(Expanding the Vision: 1998 Update, North AmericanWaterfowl Management Plan), the Pacific Flywaypopulation has been decreasing since the mid-1970s(Figure F-2). The decline of the San Francisco Baypopulation has been even more pronounced, sug-gesting a decline in habitat quality relative to otherwintering areas. The decline in habitat associatedwith the closing of Leslie Salt’s North Bay salt pondsis one possible explanation. A shift in the Bay’s ben-thic fauna to exotic species, especially the Asianclam Potamocorbula amurensis, may also have con-tributed. More exotic species have been introducedto San Francisco Bay than any other body of wateron the West Coast.

San Francisco Bay is also an important winter-ing area for surf scoters. They are the second most


Goldeneye, a diving duck relatively common to salt ponds. SAVE THE BAY

abundant wintering waterfowl species (Table 3-4).Recent midwinter Bay indices have approached his-toric highs (Figure F-3, Table F-2), but this may sim-ply reflect improved survey technique following arestructuring of the methods in 1988 (JohnTakekawa, USGS-BRD, personal communication).Like scaup, scoters present problems with identifi-cation, especially during aerial surveys. However,ground surveys have revealed that surf scoter rep-resent 99 percent of scoter in the Bay (Accurso 1992;John Takekawa, USGS-BRD, personal communica-tion); thus misidentification is not a significant prob-lem. It is clear that an increasing portion of PacificFlyway scoters is wintering in San Francisco Bay. Seaduck populations are also of concern. According tothe Sea Duck Joint Venture, continental sea duckpopulations are substantially lower than theyshould be, and may be suffering from contaminantsin Bay sediments. High concentrations of seleniumand other metals have been found in scoters fromSan Francisco Bay (Ohlendorf et al. 1986), and thesemay negatively impact survival and/or reproduc-tion. Water quality improvement and pollutionreduction initiatives could benefit sea ducks andother benthivorous species. Restoration of riparianand coastal wetlands should reduce the bioavail-ability of the Bay’s contaminant load by sequester-ing contaminants in accreted wetland sediments.

Setting Waterfowl Population and Habitat Restoration Goals

Diving ducks in San Francisco Bay represent 25–50percent of Pacific Flyway populations, thus the Bayis absolutely essential to the continued health ofthese populations. The habitat needs of thesespecies will not be met elsewhere in the PacificFlyway. The activities of the Central Valley HabitatJoint Venture primarily benefit geese and dabblingducks. The Pacific Coast Joint Venture is working indiving duck wintering areas such as Puget Soundand Humboldt Bay, but these areas are much lesssignificant than San Francisco Bay. San FranciscoBay is the single most important estuary on thePacific Coast for waterfowl and many other taxa(Fritz Reid, Ducks Unlimited, personal communica-tion).

The activities of the SFBJV will effect a modestincrease in the quantity of overall wetland habitat(Table 3-5), but significant changes in the quantity ofspecific habitat types. The major benefits to water-fowl will not accrue from the modest increase inhabitat area, but rather the improvement of existinghabitat via restoration, better management, andimproved water quality. Wetland habitat shifts willbe from the categories of “Salt Pond” and “Grasslandand Associated Wetland” to “Tidal Wetland.” Salt


Table 3-5 Anticipated Changes in San Francisco Bay Habitat Quantity Resulting from SFBJV Activities. (Goals partially derived from Habitat Goals)

Habitat Type Present Habitat Projected Change in Percentage Change in Area (acres) Habitat (acres) Habitat Area

Tidal Flat 28,000 4,000 +14

Tidal Marsh 32,000 32,000 +100

Lagoon 4,000 -750 -19

Beach 70 60 +86

Salt Pond 34,000 -14,250 -42

Diked Wetland 17,000 6,000 +35

Grasslands and 53,000 -24,000 -45Associated Wetland1

Lake 12,000 1,000 +8

Creek and Riparian Zone 2,500 4,000 +160

TOTAL 182,570 +8,060 +4

Source: Habitat Goals, 1999

1. Category includes 30,000 acres of “Agricultural Baylands” (farmed lands), which have lower and unpredictablehabitat value.

pond acreage “lost” to restoration will be primarilyhigh salinity ponds, including crystallizers and bit-tern ponds (Carl Wilcox, CDFG, personal communi-cation). These ponds do not support significantwaterfowl use. Ponds retained will generally be morepreferred by waterfowl, and in some cases will bemanaged expressly as diving duck habitat (CarlWilcox, CDFG, personal communication). Grasslandsand associated wetlands are diked and drained wet-lands used for agriculture, and they are managedexpressly to minimize ponding. The ponding whichdoes occur on such land is generally only fromJanuary–March, and it does not provide reliable,high-quality habitat. Diked wetlands managed specif-ically for waterfowl provide much better habitat.

To achieve the habitat restoration objectives ofthe Joint Venture, salt pond acreage may be reducedby as much as 40 percent (Table 3-5). This couldhave a significant deleterious effect on waterfowl ingeneral and diving ducks in particular as salt pondshave become critical habitat for a number of speciesover the past century. The importance to waterfowlof salt ponds, both active and inactive, is demon-strated in Table 3-6.

The change in salt pond acreage should be aguideline for the SFBJV, rather than an absolute goal.Therefore, all projects conducted through the part-ners of the SFBJV shall consider potential impacts onwaterfowl, as well as on other biota in the Bay. Giventhe magnitude of this habitat change, populations ofthese species merit careful observation and monitor-ing before, during, and after the restoration. An adap-tive management approach to wetland restorationand management will be necessary to maintain water-fowl habitat in the long term. Losses of salt pond habi-tat will be offset by enhancement of remaining salt

ponds, and increases in other habitat types used bydiving ducks, such as tidal flat, diked wetland (man-aged seasonal marsh), muted tidal marsh, and deep-water (see Table 3-5). As noted previously, much ofthe salt pond acreage lost will be in high salinityponds of low waterfowl habitat value. Also, large openponds will be incorporated into large-scale tidalmarsh restorations. Ponds about a meter in depthwere a common, natural feature in the Suisun Marsh ofthe late 1800s, and supported large numbers of can-vasback (where dabbling ducks now dominate). Lossof salt pond habitat can be partially offset by creatingmore seasonal wetlands, and by including muted tidalhabitat in tidal marsh restorations. The muted tidalmarsh at Tolay Creek, San Pablo NWR, supports largenumbers of pintails during the fall (J. Jasper Lament,personal observation). Tidal marshes are an impor-tant resource for waterfowl, because, unlike many sea-sonal wetlands, they persist even during droughtyears (NAWMP Concept Plan for Waterfowl HabitatProtection, San Francisco Bay, California).

One of the key attributes of the salt pond habi-tat is the lack of disturbance. There is little to noboat traffic on the salt ponds, thus they provide arefuge from human disturbance for rafting water-fowl. The ever-increasing boat traffic on the Bay mayexact an energetic toll on wintering birds. There isprobably little that can be done by the SFBJV toreduce traffic on the open Bay, but efforts can bemade to provide secure, alternative roosting andfeeding sites in peripheral waters.

Certain diving duck species use salt pondsextensively (Accurso 1992), thus it has been suggest-ed that maintaining recent diving duck populations(Table 3-4) could be a challenge if salt ponds are converted to tidal marshes. The North Bay salt


Table 3-6 Wintering Waterfowl Usage of Salt Pond Regions as a Percent of San Francisco Bay Regional Wintering Population

Species North Bay North Bay South Bay South Bay Mean Total Salt Ponds Salt Ponds Salt Ponds Salt Ponds Salt Ponds Usage1988–89 1989–90 1988–89 1989–90

Northern shoveler 8 10 91 88 98.5Northern pintail 19 13.6 66 67 82.8Canvasback 59 38 17 17 65.5Scaup 11 2.4 2.6 1 8.5Scoter <0.2 <0.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.4Bufflehead 30 38 50 46 82Ruddy duck 25 30 67 55 88.5

Source: Accurso, 1992

ponds accounted for 15 percent of the Bay’s total div-ing duck population in 1988–89 and eight percent in1989–90, while the South Bay salt ponds held 11 per-cent and eight percent respectively (Accurso 1992).Salt pond usage by scaup, the Bay’s most abundantdiving duck, and scoter is quite low. Usage is muchhigher for canvasback, bufflehead, and ruddy duck(Table 3-6). However, during winter storms, morethan 50 percent of all scaup and canvasback may befound on North Bay salt pond habitats. This demon-strates the subtle differences in habitat requirementsof the various diving duck species, and the need tointensively manage the salt ponds that will be main-tained in their current condition.

Certain waterfowl populations will benefit froman increase in diked (managed) wetland acreage(Table 3-5). The 35 percent increase in diked wetlandswill benefit dabbling ducks, such as mallard, widgeon,and pintail, but also diving ducks. For example, a 90-acre diked wetland at Viansa Winery (SonomaCounty) supports 30,000+ canvasbacks and pintail ata time (John Nagel and Fritz Reid, Ducks Unlimited,personal communication). Canvasback usage is espe-cially common during periods of rough weather on theBay, and they probably feed heavily on the submerged

aquatic vegetation. This particular wetland also pro-vides excellent dabbling duck wintering habitat.

The limited usage of the Bay by dabblingducks, geese, and swans could be significantlyexpanded by restoration of tidal and freshwatermarshes, riparian systems, lakes, ponds, and associ-ated uplands. Restoration of these critical habitatswould also benefit shorebirds, passerines, wadingbirds, and other types of wetland-dependentwildlife, including several special status species.

Shovelers and pintails both use salt pondsextensively (Table 3-6). For these species, creation ofnew managed freshwater wetlands (6,000 acres) willhelp offset the reduction in salt pond acreage.Managed freshwater wetlands would be particularlysensible at sites where tidal marsh restoration is notfeasible due to human activities. Management of veg-etation and water levels is key to maintaining habitatdiversity, and helps avoid cattail monocultures.Large stands of cattail that lack open water providepoor habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. Seasonalwetland habitat should also be incorporated intotidal marsh restorations by designing an elevationalsalinity gradient. Some dabbling ducks, such as pin-tail and green-winged teal, will benefit from the


The Bay Area’s original inhabitants, the Ohlone, hunted ducks with nets. FROM THE OHLONE WAY

planned restoration of tidal flats (4,000 acres), whileothers, such as wood ducks and mallards, will bene-fit from the restoration and enhancement of riparianzones (20,000 acres). An increase in local mallards isforeseeable if a significant amount of breeding habi-tat is created. Local mallard production could be fur-ther enhanced through improved management ofnatural grasslands. Nesting structures and predatorcontrol would help reduce the impact of predationby introduced red foxes. Finally, shovelers wouldbenefit from any new sewage lagoons, which thoughnot part of the SFBJV Implementation Strategy, are alikely byproduct of continued human populationgrowth in the Bay Area.

Waterfowl Population Goals

A primary waterfowl goal of the SFBJV is to provideenough high quality wetland habitat to consistentlysupport wintering populations of key Bay waterfowlspecies at recent peak population levels. Key Baywaterfowl species are canvasback, scaup (greaterand lesser), and scoters. More specifically, the goalfor these species is to sustain populations in everyyear at the peak levels recorded in 1989–90 (Table 3-4). Levels for 1989–90 were the highest recordedduring three years of intensive surveying byAccurso (1992). This was the most comprehensivewaterfowl survey conducted for San Francisco Baywaterfowl.

A secondary goal of the SFBJV is to provideenough habitat to consistently support winteringpopulations of other Bay indicator waterfowlspecies at recent peak population levels. Other Bayindicators are: mallard, northern pintail, northernshoveler, and ruddy duck. More specifically, the goalfor these species is to sustain populations in everyyear at the peak levels recorded in 1987–90 (Table 3-4). However, achieving this goal would not be anacceptable substitute to attaining the primary div-ing duck goals.

Other Habitat Issues

Transitional Habitat

Tidal marsh restoration is an extended process, whichcreates transitional habitat (in the form of large,brackish ponds) favored by diving ducks. The TolayCreek Project in San Pablo Bay NWR is an example ofa tidal marsh restoration that created diving duck

habitat. The restoration of tidal action in the creek cre-ated a 53-acre brackish pond from diked, farmed bay-lands. This pond received immediate usage by rafts ofboth dabbling and diving ducks. This pond will persistfor years, before bay sediments accumulate sufficient-ly for the area to return to tidal marsh. These projectsdemonstrate that better management can enhancediked baylands for the benefit of both dabbling anddiving ducks. These transitional habitats, while valu-able in the short term, cannot be counted on for long-term waterfowl habitat contributions.

Clean Water and Aquatic Vegetation

Habitat values in the open shallow bay should alsoimprove due to better water quality. Riparian andtidal marsh restoration will reduce contaminants andsediment in runoff. Tidal marshes will filter sedi-ments resuspended by wind and wave action onmudflats (Carl Wilcox, CDFG, personal communica-tion). This will lead to cleaner water in the Bay.Cleaner Bay water should produce more submergedaquatic vegetation. Aquatic vegetation providesnutritional value to diving ducks superior to the mol-lusks that are currently available (Jorde et al. 1995).It is a particularly important dietary item for canvas-backs (Yocom and Keller 1961; Bellrose 1980).Though historic records are scarce, it seems likelythat aquatic vegetation was more abundant histori-cally, when water clarity was better. Diving and seaducks will benefit significantly from this change, ashas been observed in Chesapeake Bay. Reducedsalinity due to excessive discharge of freshwatertreated sewage is causing localized problems foraquatic vegetation, especially near San Jose in theSouth Bay. This problem should be addressed torestore ambient Bay salinity.

Exotic Aquatic Species

As the benthic invertebrate fauna of the Bay gradu-ally shift to exotic species, it is unknown what theeffect will be on molluskivorous species like scaup,scoter, and canvasback. Little is known of the nutri-tive value of the native or the exotic invertebratespecies. For example, in the Great Lakes, it appearsthat diving ducks are exploiting the abundant exoticzebra mussel, but it is unknown what the effect ofthis dietary shift has been on survival or contami-nant bioaccumulation.


Actions to Benefit Waterfowl

1. Protect, enhance, and restore diving duck win-tering habitat, especially shallow open water,and ensure the maintenance of at least thepeak population levels of diving duck popula-tions recorded in 1989–90. Top priority speciesare canvasback, scaup, and scoter.

2. Ensure provision of sufficient habitat to con-sistently support at least the peak levels of res-ident and wintering populations of the otherindicator waterfowl species recorded in1987–90.

3. Preserve historic composition of waterfowlcommunity relative to dabbling, diving, andsea ducks.

4. Improve management of existing habitat (espe-cially water circulation) in active and inactivesalt ponds to increase production of inverte-brates and submerged aquatic vegetation(especially widgeon grass, Ruppia maritima).

5. Develop seasonal and riparian wetland restora-tion and enhancement projects that will restorefiltration functions and contribute to improvedwater quality throughout San Francisco Bay.Improved water quality will lead to healthieraquatic vegetation, and provide higher habitatvalue for diving ducks.

6. Restore native grasses to wetland-associateduplands to provide nesting cover for residentwaterfowl species.

7. Encourage minimal disturbance zones in shal-low bay habitats favored by diving and seaducks.

8. Encourage conservation and enhancement ofshallow bay habitats favored by diving and seaducks.

9. Where appropriate, preferentially restore high-er salinity salt ponds (>70 ppt) and crystallizerponds to tidal marsh or dry playa, rather thanlow and moderate salinity ponds (which havehigher waterfowl habitat value).

10. Where consistent with other goals, reserve ordevelop large (200 to 550 ha) salt ponds ofmoderate salinity (20 to 30 ppt) for large divingducks, and manage those ponds for produc-tion of widgeon grass, Ruppia maritima. Retainthe same relative acreage of moderate salinitysalt ponds within both North and South Bay.

11. Where consistent with other goals, reserve ordevelop medium (50 to 175 ha) salt ponds ofvariable salinity (<70 ppt) for small divingducks and dabbling ducks (especially northernshoveler).

12. If industrial salt production ceases in SouthBay, explore possibility of maintaining some


US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

high salinity ponds through alternative watermanagement strategy, in order to maintain pro-duction of brine shrimp and brine flies (impor-tant food resources for some waterfowlspecies).

13. Restore riparian habitat to expand habitat fordabbling ducks. Plant native hardwood trees(especially oaks) and develop nest box pro-grams in creek and riparian restoration proj-ects where wood duck habitat potential exists.

14. Incorporate side channels and floodplainenhancement into creek and riparian restora-tion projects.

15. Where consistent with other goals, managesome diked seasonal wetlands for diving ducksby keeping large expanses of open water andminimizing emergent vegetation.

16. Expand waterfowl monitoring program at bothBay-wide and project-specific scales, to supportenactment of adaptive management programs.

The Role of Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

Waterfowl monitoring at the scale of the entire Bayis currently inadequate. A single midwinter surveyprovides only a snapshot of waterfowl use: it doesnot provide enough information to measure theeffects of this Implementation Strategy. The additionof early and late season surveys to the existing mid-winter survey would represent a great improve-ment. Ideally, the protocol of Accurso (1992) wouldbe adopted, i.e., aerial surveys every two weeksfrom October through April. This would provide amuch more complete picture of waterfowl usage inthe Bay.

A substantial waterfowl-monitoring program isalready being conducted by the staff of the USGeological Survey Biological Research Division, SanFrancisco Estuary Field Station. Monthly waterfowl

ground surveys are conducted on the former NorthBay salt ponds, which are now part of the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game Napa-SonomaMarshes Wildlife Area. As habitat restoration pro-gresses on this site, the impact on waterfowl will betracked, facilitating the development of an adaptivemanagement program. Over a period of one year,new management practices could be tested, theimpact on waterfowl usage tracked, and feedbackderived for the following year’s management pro-gram. This type of program has been extremely suc-cessful in breeding habitat areas such as the PrairieHabitat Joint Venture.

We do not yet understand the mechanisms thatlimit wintering populations of waterfowl. This makes itvery difficult to link habitat restoration goals with thepopulation-based goals of NAWMP. Energetics-basedmodels are a promising new approach to estimatingwintering habitat requirements. However, data onfood production in tidal habitats is insufficient to sup-port such an approach in the Bay. Feeding ecology ismuch more complex in the Bay than in the rice coun-try of the Central Valley. Dietary items are morediverse and dispersed, and they change in availabilityseasonally, and even daily. All we know at present isthat food availability in the Bay is correlated with shal-low bay acreage. But data on prey availability andnutritional value is insufficient to establish a directlink to the birds. More research is needed on con-sumption, density, and production of prey, as well aschanges in diet between and within years. Until habi-tat needs can be determined, it is best to take a con-servative approach and maximize habitat quantityand quality.

Therefore, it is an objective of this Implemen-tation Strategy to monitor and evaluate the effectson waterfowl of the implementation of the habitatgoals and make recommendations to ensure viablewaterfowl populations. This objective is includedwith the Monitoring Objectives of Chapter 5. In lightof the factors discussed above, waterfowl monitor-ing as part of wetland restoration should be con-ducted using an adaptive management approach.

36 Restoring The Estuary

Objectives and Strategies forAccomplishing the Vision

Objectives and Strategies forAccomplishing the Vision

With a vision of more than doubling tidal wet-lands and more than tripling riparian habitats

around the Estuary through restoration andenhancement in the next two decades, the partnersof the SFBJV are seeking to accomplish ambitious,but well-researched and achievable goals. The nexttwo chapters offer specific strategies for undertak-ing this vision.

In this chapter, eight sets of objectives are recommended to accomplish the Joint Venture’sacreage goals. The objectives are shown at the out-set of each section in italicized text and are fol-lowed by a series of proposed strategies that aredesigned to guide Joint Venture partners in imple-menting them.

Acquisition, Restoration, and Enhancement

Objectives and Strategies

The Joint Venture has developed acreage objectivesfor permanently protecting, restoring, and enhancingwetland habitats. These goals have been developedfor each of the five subregions identified within theJoint Venture boundaries. Specific strategies toaccomplish these objectives are identified for eachsubregion, reflecting the unique qualities of each

area. To further respect regional differences, water-shed working groups within each subregion havebeen or will be established to inform Joint Ventureactivities with local knowledge and to carry outresponsive recommendations.

Joint Venture partners will work with land-owners in the pursuit of their collective objectives.Fee acquisition of private property from willing sell-ers will continue to be used as the primary methodfor acquisition where practical, and will make use of conservation easements as a major land pro-tection tool. Conservation easements can reducethe cost of permanently protecting habitat by pur-chasing only the development rights while allowingthe property to remain in private ownership. Thefact that SFBJV is a non-regulatory entity meansthat its acreage objectives assume working cooper-atively with willing landowners. This does not pre-clude the ability of agencies to condemn land inextreme cases.

The partners also recognize the importance ofworking with both public and private landowners inaccomplishing the restoration/enhancement objec-tives. Many public agencies have purchased habitatbut have had difficulty finding the resources torestore and enhance these properties. Many privatelandowners have been good stewards and wouldlike the opportunity to do more if they had morefunding and technical assistance. The SFBJV wouldlike to build on these initiatives.

4

LIZA RIDDLE

North Bay Subregion Acreage Objectives and Strategies

Acquire 23,000 acres of bay habitats, 18,000 acresof seasonal wetlands, and 1,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the North BaySubregion using fee or permanent easementacquisition.

Restore 15,000 acres of bay habitats, 4,000 acresof seasonal wetlands, and 1,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the North BaySubregion on both public and private lands usingnon-regulatory techniques.

Enhance 13,000 acres of bay habitats, 12,000acres of seasonal wetlands, and 4,000 acres ofhabitat associated with creeks and lakes in theNorth Bay Subregion on both public and privatelands using non-regulatory techniques.

The North Bay counties of Solano, Napa, and Sonomahost a mixture of large tracts of publicly ownedwildlife lands and privately owned agricultural landspresenting the opportunity to protect, restore, andenhance a large mosaic of wetlands, riparian habitat,and associated uplands of close to 40,000 acres.

Marin County’s shoreline and watersheds are some-what more developed; however, 5,000 acres of unde-veloped baylands remain in private ownership. Somewetland sites are under significant pressure for devel-opment, including the St. Vincent’s and the Silveiraproperties. The western Contra Costa Shoreline haslimited restoration opportunities because the area islined with heavy industry and the neighboring com-munity is highly urbanized. The East Bay RegionalPark District has protected large tracts of shorelineand watershed properties. A few large marshes arestill in private ownership, such as Wildcat and SanPablo Marshes.

The Joint Venture has already undertakensteps to expand the San Pablo Bay National WildlifeRefuge to the Marin shoreline. This expansion is thefirst step toward permanently protecting largetracts of shoreline properties, and gives JointVenture partners greater access to another fundingsource—the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Strategies to Acquire, Restore, and EnhanceWetland Habitat in the North Bay Subregion

Acquisition. The North Bay Subregion has severalpublic refuges and wildlife areas owned by theDepartment of Fish and Game (Napa-Sonoma


o b j e c t i v e s

Petaluma Marsh from the air. At 3,000 acres, it is the Estuary’s largest remaining tidal wetland and is ripe for expansionthrough restoration of former tidelands. US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Marshes, Petaluma Marsh), the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge), andthe East Bay Regional Park District (Contra Costa).Fee title acquisitions in the North Bay Subregion willbe completed by either public agencies or nonprofitconservation organizations including:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Wildlife Conservation Board/California Department of Fish and Game

• Coastal Conservancy (Bay Area ConservancyProgram)

• State Lands Commission

• East Bay Regional Park District

• Marin Open Space District

• Marin Audubon Society

• Napa County Land Trust

• Sonoma Land Trust

• Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District.

The San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge willbe expanded to include most of the Marin baylandsand possibly reaches of the Sonoma shoreline thatare not already part of the refuge. Conservation oragricultural easements will be purchased whereappropriate by public agencies or nonprofit conser-vation organizations including:


• Wildlife Conservation Board/Department of Fish and Game


• Natural Resources Conservation Service (Wet-lands Reserve Program, Farmland ProtectionProgram)

• Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation andOpen Space District

• Napa County Land Trust

• Sonoma Land Trust

• Marin Agricultural Land Trust

• Department of Conservation—Agricultural LandStewardship Program.

If these easement programs are not adequate, aconservation/agricultural easement program specific

to the needs of North Bay farmers and otherlandowners should be developed to fill the gaps.

Restoration and Enhancement. There are numer-ous opportunities to complete restoration andenhancement of lands already in public ownershipin the North Bay. For example, the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service have acquired close to 15,000 acresover the past ten years. Several actions can be takento further this objective.

1. Assist with securing funding or partners tofacilitate restoration and enhancement of pub-lic lands such as Cullinan Ranch and Napa-Sonoma Marshes.

2. Encourage organizations such as Ducks Un-limited and California Waterfowl Association tocontinue and expand existing partnershipswith public agencies.

3. Develop new sources of public and privatefunding that will cover the cost of planning aswell as implementation for restoration andenhancement projects.

4. Support expansion of the boundaries of theSan Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge toinclude Marin County baylands and sites inSonoma adjacent to the Petaluma River and, inNapa and Solano, to ensure maximum protec-tion of important habitats as part of the NorthBay ecosystem.

5. Endorse and aid efforts by the Marin AudubonSociety, Marin Baylands Advocates, andSonoma Land Trust to acquire, restore, andenhance baylands.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, the North Baycounties of Marin, Sonoma, and Napa hold the mostpotential for restoration and enhancement on pri-vate lands. Many of the diked historic baylandsremain in agriculture. These agricultural lands arean important part of the economy and provide vari-ous degrees of wildlife habitat. The Joint Venturepartners need to continue to work with theselandowners and encourage restoration on theseagricultural lands by taking the following steps:

1. Implement the Stewardship Plan drafted by theSan Pablo Baylands Partnership.

2. Implement watershed management plans thathave been developed or are being completedfor the Napa River, Sonoma Creek, Petaluma

Chapter 4—Objectives and Strategies for Accomplishing the Vision 39

River, and others as they are identified andcompleted.

3. Encourage the development of watershed man-agement plans for creeks and streams that arenot currently within a watershed planning area.

4. Work with private landowners to develop habi-tat enhancement projects appropriate for cost-sharing programs such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Wildlife Programand the Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).

5. Develop a cost-sharing habitat restoration pro-gram for private landowners in the North Baypatterned after Partners for Wildlife and WHIP.

6. Work with urban creek groups to restore ripar-ian habitat.

7. Cultivate and/or enhance Watershed WorkingGroups within the North Bay, particularly for the Petaluma River and Sonoma Creekwatersheds.

Suisun Subregion Acreage Objectives and Strategies

(area includes Contra Costa shoreline and uplands)

Acquire 3,000 acres of bay habitats, 11,000 acresof seasonal wetlands, and 1,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the SuisunSubregion using fee or permanent easementacquisition.

Restore 2,000 acres of bay habitats, 1,000 acres ofseasonal wetlands, and 1,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the SuisunSubregion on both public and private lands usingnon-regulatory techniques.

Enhance 2,000 acres of bay habitats, 6,000 acresof seasonal wetlands, and 4,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the SuisunSubregion on both public and private lands usingnon-regulatory techniques.


Re-creating tidal channels at Tolay Creek (1998) DUCKS UNLIMITED

o b j e c t i v e s

The Suisun Subregion incorporates lands both northand south of the Carquinez Strait, but excludes theSuisun Marsh itself, which is part of the CentralValley Habitat Joint Venture’s geographic scope.Lands above the 10-foot contour line surroundingSuisun Marsh are included in the San Francisco BayJoint Venture. The areas separated by the Strait arevery different in terms of habitat types and land use.The Solano County area includes duck clubs, openagricultural land (primarily grazing), and urban andresidential development. The Contra Costa shore-line is heavily industrialized, and land uses beyondthe shoreline include dense residential develop-ment, urban areas, and some range land in the hillsalong the Strait and on the flanks of Mt. Diablo.There are numerous agencies and nonprofits work-ing on either side of the Strait, and it is recommend-ed that two watershed working groups be estab-lished to represent these areas.

One of the largest opportunities on the ContraCosta side is working cooperatively with the Con-cord Naval Weapons Station and adjacent landown-ers to restore and enhance several thousand acresof wetlands in public and private ownership.

Strategies to Acquire, Restore, and EnhanceWetland Habitat in the Suisun Subregion

Acquisition. The Suisun Subregion has severalagencies and nonprofits that can assist with theimplementation of the Joint Venture’s acquisitionobjective including:




• California Department of Parks and Recreation


• Contra Costa County Flood Control District

• Solano County Farmlands and Open Space Foundation

• Muir Heritage Trust (formerly Martinez RegionalLand Trust)

• Agricultural Land Trust of Contra Costa County

• Save Mt. Diablo.

Conservation or agricultural easements will bepurchased where appropriate by public agencies ornonprofit conservation organizations including:

• Wildlife Conservation Board/California Depart-ment of Fish and Game


• Natural Resources Conservation Service (Wetlands Reserve Program, Farmland ProtectionProgram)

• Department of Conservation’s Agricultural LandStewardship Program

• Solano County Farmlands and Open SpaceFoundation

• Muir Heritage Land Trust

• Agricultural Land Trust of Contra Costa County

• California Waterfowl Association.

Restoration and Enhancement. Restoration andenhancement goals can be accomplished on bothpublic and private lands in the Suisun Subregion.Strategies to complete more restoration andenhancement projects on lands already in publicownership include:

1. Assist with securing state, federal, local, andprivate funding or partners to facilitaterestoration and enhancement of public lands.

2. Increase existing and develop new sources ofpublic and private funding that will cover thecost of planning as well as implementation forrestoration and enhancement projects.

3. Encourage organizations such as Ducks Un-limited and California Waterfowl Association tobuild and expand partnerships with publicagencies.

4. Work with flood control districts to design andconstruct nonstructural flood control projectsand to restore riparian corridors.

5. Promote tidal restoration projects involvingpartnership with Mosquito and Vector ControlDistricts to effect multiple benefits.

6. Facilitate the development of a managementplan for the Point Edith/Concord NavalWeapons Station region of Contra CostaCounty to encourage the restoration, enhance-ment, and cooperative management of wetlandhabitats in public and private ownership.


To encourage restoration and enhancement on pri-vate lands, the following steps should be taken:

1. Assist with the implementation of watershedmanagement plans that have been completedor are in process, such as Alhambra Creek’s.

2. Encourage the development of watershedmanagement plans for creeks and streams thatare not currently within a watershed planningarea.

3. Work with private landowners to develop habi-tat enhancement projects appropriate for cost-sharing programs such as the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service Partners for Wildlife Programand the Natural Resources Conservation Ser-vice Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.

4. Work with resource conservation districts toidentify enhancement opportunities.

5. Work with organizations such as Ducks Un-limited and California Waterfowl Association toexpand their private lands programs.

6. Seek private funding sources for habitatenhancement projects on private lands.

7. Work with urban creek groups to restore ripar-ian habitat.

8. Cultivate and enhance partnerships within theSuisun subregion, particularly for the WalnutCreek and Marsh Creek watersheds.

Central Bay Subregion Acreage Objectives and Strategies

Acquire 9,000 acres of bay habitats, 1,000 acres of seasonal wetlands, and 1,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the Central Bay Subregion using fee or permanent easementacquisition.

Restore 4,000 acres of bay habitats, and 1,000acres of habitat associated with creeks and lakesin the Central Bay Subregion on both public andprivate lands using non-regulatory techniques.

Enhance 4,000 acres of bay habitats, 1,000 acresof seasonal wetlands, and 3,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the CentralBay Subregion on both public and private landsusing non-regulatory techniques.

The Central Bay, which includes the cities of SanFrancisco and Oakland, is the region’s most highlyurbanized section. This places great constraints onthe opportunities for acquisition, restoration, andenhancement. Nonetheless, there are a number ofinnovative and prominent examples of habitat proj-ects. These include recently completed efforts torestore wetlands at Crissy Field and at Pier 98 in SanFrancisco. Among projects in progress are re-estab-lishing wetlands around Oakland’s Lake Merritt,riparian restoration on Codornices Creek in Albanyand Cerritos and Wildcat Creeks in Richmond, thedecades-long creation of Eastshore State Park, andthe transfer of several hundred acres of AlamedaNaval Air Station to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

There are also many opportunities to workwith urban creek groups to protect, restore, andenhance the many creeks that flow into wetlands atthe Bay’s edge. Higher potentials for restorationexist in less urbanized portions of the Central Bayat the Corte Madera Ecological Reserve and GoldenGate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) lands insouthern Marin County. It would make sense forcoordinating efforts in the Central Bay to have oneWatershed Working Group for the east side andanother for the northwest side, such as the AquaticOutreach Institute and the North Bay RiparianStation respectively.

Strategies to Acquire, Restore, and EnhanceWetland Habitat in the Central Bay Subregion

Acquisition. Fee or title acquisitions can be securedby several agencies and organizations in the CentralBay in spite of the relatively limited opportunities.


• National Park Service

• Wildlife Conservation Board/California Depart-ment of Fish and Game



• Marin County Open Space District


• Hayward Area Parks and Recreation District

Conservation or agricultural easements will beused if the opportunity arises. Potential agencies


o b j e c t i v e s

and nonprofits that couldpurchase easements are:



• Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWetland Reserve Program,Farmland Protection Program

Restoration and Enhance-ment. The restoration andenhancement of lands al-ready in public ownership inthe Central Bay can be com-pleted by taking the followingactions:

1. Assist with securingfunding and partners to facilitate restorationand enhancement of public lands such asEastshore State Park and Alameda Naval AirStation.

2. Encourage organizations such as Ducks Unlim-ited, Audubon Society, and the CaliforniaWaterfowl Association to continue to buildand expand working partnerships with publicagencies.

3. Work with flood control districts to design andconstruct nonstructural flood control projectsand to restore riparian corridors.

4. Work with the Ports of San Francisco and Oak-land on the use of dredge spoils for tidal wet-land restoration.

5. Develop new sources of public and private funding that will cover the cost of planning aswell as implementation and management ofrestoration and enhancement projects.

Restoration and enhancement opportunitieson private lands are highly constrained by urbaniza-tion in the Central Bay. In fact, most privately heldwetlands in the Central Bay are riparian. Given thesefactors, habitat benefits can be accomplishedthrough the following strategies:

1. Work with groups engaged in community-basedrestoration, including “friends of creeks” organ-izations, and with resource conservation dis-tricts in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties torestore riparian habitat, as is being undertakenin Albany, Berkeley, Richmond, and Oakland.

2. Support creation of regional and sub-regionalwatershed councils to provide supportiveforums for sharing technical informationamong agencies and with the many “friends ofcreeks” organizations, and to coordinate theirstrategies, activities, and projects.

3. Identify a comprehensive list of riparian proj-ects and prioritize them by need, scope, andmultiplicity of objectives.

4. Develop a wetlands and riparian “extensionservice” to work with private landowners toencourage better land stewardship throughenhancing wetlands and creeks on their prop-erties.

5. Encourage the development of watershed plansor coordinated resource management plans toidentify sources of erosion and other impacts,and to provide “bio-technical” solutions.

6. Promote the creation of creek restoration andstewardship groups wherever there are inter-ested residents living along the channel.


Hoffman Marsh near Albany Hill is visible to commuters on Interstate 80.

7. Develop creek restoration and monitoring pro-grams involving schools located along creeks.

8. Work with the Watershed Assessment ResourceCenter to improve subregional and regionalwatershed planning and monitoring.

South Bay Subregion Acreage Objectives and Strategies

Acquire 28,000 acres of bay habitats, 7,000 acresof seasonal wetlands, and 3,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the South BaySubregion using fee or permanent easementacquisition.

Restore 16,000 acres of bay habitats, 1,000 acresof seasonal wetlands, and 2,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the South BaySubregion on both public and private lands usingnon-regulatory techniques.

Enhance 42,000 acres of bay habitats, 4,000 acresof seasonal wetlands, and 11,000 acres of habitatassociated with creeks and lakes in the South BaySubregion on both public and private lands usingnon-regulatory techniques.

The South Bay shoreline has a complex pattern ofland uses: industrial, residential, former landfill sites,wildlife habitat and, predominantly, salt ponds.Opportunities for acquisition and restoration alongthe South Bay shoreline have, until recently, beenlimited. Cargill Salt owns over 25,000 acres that are inactive salt production. Joint Venture activities alongthe shoreline will focus on restoring parcels alreadyowned by the San Francisco Bay National WildlifeRefuge, such as Mayhew’s Landing and the KnappTract. However, recently and significantly, they willalso include developing partnerships for purchasingCargill’s salt ponds; the company announced inOctober 2000 its intention to sell 19,000 acres of itsholdings, preferably for wetlands restoration. TheSFBJV strongly supports acquisition of the ponds.

Away from the Bay’s edge, there are a number ofwatershed and riparian restoration efforts, such asthe San Francisquito Coordinated Resource Manage-ment Plan. There are also ongoing restoration plansand projects for scores of miles of Coyote Creek andthe Guadalupe River in San Jose, some of which haveexisted for over a decade.

Strategies to Acquire, Restore, and EnhanceWetland Habitat in the South Bay Subregion

Acquisition. Fee title acquisitions from willing sell-ers can be completed by public agencies or non-profit conservation organizations including:



• Coastal Conservancy (Bay Area Conservancy Program)



• Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District

• Peninsula Open Space Trust

• Santa Clara County Open Space Authority

• Santa Clara County Land Trust.


Alviso’s marina has reverted to tidal wetland. JAY JONES

o b j e c t i v e s

Conservation easements will be purchased whereappropriate by public agencies or nonprofit conser-vation organizations including:


• Wildlife Conservation Board/CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game


• Natural Resources Conservation Service (Wetlands Reserve Program, FarmlandProtection Program)

• Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST)

• Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District

• Santa Clara County Open Space Authority

• Santa Clara County Land Trust.

Restoration and Enhancement. Restoration andenhancement of lands already in public ownershipcan best be accomplished by:

1. Securing funding and partners to facilitaterestoration and enhancement of public lands.

2. Encouraging organizations such as DucksUnlimited and California Waterfowl Asso-ciation to build and expand partnerships withpublic agencies in the South Bay.

3. Developing new sources of public and privatefunding that will cover the cost of planning aswell as implementation for restoration andenhancement projects.

4. Working with flood control districts to designand construct nonstructural flood control proj-ects and to restore riparian corridors.

Restoration and enhancement on private lands canbe accomplished by taking the following steps:

1. Work with Cargill to explore ways to enhancethe habitat values of the salt ponds for water-fowl and shorebirds.

2. Implement watershed management plans thathave been developed or are in process for SanFrancisquito and Alameda Creeks, and othersas they are identified and completed.

3. Encourage the development of watershed man-agement plans for creeks and streams that arenot currently within a watershed planning area.

4. Work with private landowners to develop habi-tat enhancement projects appropriate for cost-sharing programs such as the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service Partners for Wildlife Programand the Natural Resources Conservation Ser-vice Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.

5. Work with Regional Water Quality ControlBoards to integrate SFBJV goals and strategiesinto Watershed Management Initiatives withinthe South Bay, particularly for the CoyoteCreek and Guadalupe Creek watersheds.

San Francisco/San Mateo Coast SubregionAcreage Objectives and Strategies

Acquisition, enhancement, and restoration objec-tives for wetlands of this subregion have not yetbeen defined, but are likely to be small given theirsmall size and limited number.

Determine the total acreage for acquisition of bayhabitats, seasonal wetlands, and habitat associat-ed with creeks and lakes in the San Francisco/San Mateo Coast Subregion largely using acquisi-tion of permanent easements.

Determine total acreages for restoration of bayhabitats and seasonal wetlands. Restore 3,000acres of habitat associated with creeks and lakesin the San Francisco/San Mateo Coast Subregionon both public and private lands using non-regu-latory techniques.

Determine total acreages for enhancement of bayhabitats and seasonal wetlands. Enhance 5,000acres of habitat associated with creeks and lakesin the San Francisco/San Mateo Coast Subregionon both public and private lands using non-regu-latory techniques.

The San Francisco and San Mateo coastal areas con-tain a few small coastal wetlands at the mouths ofsubstantial stream watersheds. There are manyongoing habitat projects along this scenic coast. Acommunity-based watershed stewardship initiativeis active on San Pedro Creek. The California Depart-ment of Parks and Recreation has been implement-ing a hydrologic and habitat enhancement plan forPescadero Marsh. Pillar Point Marsh has beenacquired by the San Mateo County Parks Depart-ment for addition to the adjacent Fitzgerald


o b j e c t i v e s

Reserve, and a master plan for this area is currentlyin process to identify habitat restoration opportuni-ties. Since the relatively few wetlands on the coasttend to be small, freshwater/brackish lagoons, andmost of them are already protected in state or coun-ty parks, they have not been identified among theSFBJV’s acreage goals.

The majority of the Joint Venture’s opportuni-ties for habitat acquisition, restoration, and enhance-ment will be found in the numerous watersheds thatdrain to the Pacific Ocean. There are about 275 milesof streams that flow through this area into theocean. Several watershed assessments are underway—notably for Pescadero, Butano, San Pedro, andPilarcitos Creeks (the last having been completed)—to determine the conditions of, and project typesrequired for these watersheds. These assessmentswill also help to prioritize stream projects. Giventhese factors, the acreage goals are quite general-ized, based on the assumption that 70 percent ofSan Mateo coastal streams are impaired and in needof enhancement, particularly to reduce sedimenta-tion, and that 30 percent are in need of restoration.Many of the projects would need to involve meas-ures to reduce sedimentation and erosion in thechannels, particularly serious problems degrading

habitat quality for a number of threatened andendangered species, such as coho salmon, steel-head trout, tidewater goby, San Francisco gartersnake, and red-legged frog.

Unlike the other four subregions in the SFBJV,there has been no biological baseline established forthe historical extent of wetlands in the San Fran-cisco/ San Mateo Coast Subregion. To rectify this,the historic and current extent of wetlands will needto be identified as a foundation for developing validhabitat objectives for this subregion.

Strategies to Acquire, Restore, andEnhance Wetland Habitat in the

San Francisco/San Mateo Coast Subregion

Acquisition. Fee title acquisitions on the SanFrancisco/San Mateo Coast will be completed bypublic agencies or nonprofit conservation organiza-tions including:

• National Park Service (Golden Gate NationalRecreation Area)



San Mateo coast CAROL ARNOLD

• Wildlife Conservation Board



• California Department of Parks and Recreation


• Save the Redwoods League

• Sempervirens Fund

• Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District.

Conservation or agricultural easements will be pur-chased where appropriate by public agencies ornonprofit conservation organizations including:

• National Park Service


• Wildlife Conservation Board


• Natural Resources Conservation Service (Wetland Reserve Program, Farmland Protection Program)


• Pacifica Land Trust

• Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District.

Restoration and Enhancement. To complete restora-tion and enhancement of lands already in publicownership, the following steps will be taken:

1. Secure funding and partners to facilitaterestoration and enhancement of public lands.

2. Encourage organizations such as Trout Un-limited and other organizations interested infisheries enhancement to build and expandpartnerships with public agencies.

3. Conduct regional biological assessments, con-necting and extending watershed-level assess-ments, that will help to prioritize actions andpractices to enhance habitat conditions forthreatened and endangered species through-out their range.

4. Develop new sources of public and privatefunding that will cover the cost of planning aswell as implementation for restoration andenhancement projects.

To encourage restoration and enhancement of ripar-ian corridors and downstream lagoons on privatelands, the following steps can be taken:

1. Encourage the development of watershedmanagement plans for creeks and streams thatare not currently within a watershed planningarea, such as San Vicente, Denniston, and SanGregorio Creeks.

2. Implement watershed management assess-ments and plans that have been developed orwill shortly be completed for key watershedssuch as Pilarcitos, Pescadero, Butano, and SanGregorio Creeks.

3. Work with private landowners to develophabitat enhancement projects appropriate forcost-sharing programs such as the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service Partners for WildlifeProgram and the Natural Resources Conser-vation Service Wildlife Habitat IncentivesProgram.

4. Cooperate with the agricultural communityand with organizations such as the San MateoFarm Bureau and the County’s Resource Con-servation District to develop incentives formaintaining buffer areas around creeks.

5. Identify opportunities for applying conserva-tion easements to riparian corridors, workingwith the agricultural community and landtrusts such as POST. The intention is to pro-vide landowners with tax credit incentives forestablishing defined setbacks from creeks forconservation purposes.

6. Work with those organizations and schoolsthat have community-based environmentalstewardship programs to initiate cooperativeventures with landowners for the purpose ofplanting and/or maintaining buffer strips incoastal terraces and in upstream riparian cor-ridors.

7. Use incentives for protection of recently fed-erally listed endangered Coho salmon andthreatened steelhead trout that are beingdeveloped in the Fishery Network of CentralCalifornia Coastal Counties program. Employidentified best management practices (BMPs)to promote fisheries restoration in streamswhere sedimentation has become a significantproblem.


8. Establish pilot projects within sub-watershedsto work with the agricultural community, SanMateo Farm Bureau, Monterey Bay NationalMarine Sanctuary, Regional Water QualityControl Boards, San Mateo RCD, and/or SanMateo County Agricultural Committee. Pilotprograms should use BMPs to reduce pollutedrun-off and sediments, to enhance fishery habi-tat potential.

9. Assess historic and current extent and condi-tion of coastal wetlands as a basis for determin-ing more defensible objectives for acquisition,enhancement, and restoration. Assess currentcoverage in acres.

10. Cultivate and/or enhance the establishment ofWatershed Working Groups within the San Fran-cisco/San Mateo Subregion, particularly for theSan Gregorio and Pescadero Creek watersheds.

Refinement and Facilitation of Habitat Goals

Objectives and Strategies

Implement all of the acreage goals of the GoalsProject within thirty years.

Promote and assist local organizations and agen-cies in developing and implementing habitatrestoration projects.

Develop subregional partnerships or watershedcouncils to evaluate and implement recommen-dations contained in the Habitat Goals.

Convene a collaborative process to defineacreage goals for wetlands and creeks within theSan Francisco/San Mateo subregion.

The high pace of urbanization in the Bay Area cre-ates a greater urgency for accomplishing the wet-land/ riparian acreage goals set forth in the HabitatGoals. Opportunities for acquisition, enhancement,or restoration will become increasingly limited withtime. It is for this reason that the SFBJV will strive toattain the Habitat Goals targets within a decade offulfilling the Implementation Strategy’s goals. As pre-viously noted, the Strategy represents 75 percentmilestones of the Habitat Goals’ goals.

The San Francisco/San Mateo Coast, while anintegral subregion of the SFBJV, lacks the same levelof biological assessment that was performed for theHabitat Goals for the other four subregions. Thus,goals for wetlands need to be established and creekgoals refined using a collaborative process and eco-logical assessment comparable to that of the HabitatGoals.

Strategies to Refine and FacilitateImplementation of Habitat Goals

1. Initiate a collaborative assessment process foridentifying wetland and creek acreage objec-tives for the San Mateo Coast, particularly fordetermining enhancement and restorationgoals. Acquisition goals will be centered almostentirely on easements for riparian corridors.

2. Assemble and analyze existing watershedassessments to refine riparian habitat objec-tives.

3. Develop standards and criteria for what consti-tutes adequate riparian “buffer zone” width(s)for water quality, wildlife, and fisheries protec-tion, working with urban creek groups and theRegional Water Quality Control Board.

4. Seek to protect riparian areas within the geo-graphic scope of the SFBJV through promotingthe application of adequate setbacks andthrough purchase of conservation easementsfor streamside buffer zones.

5. Wherever possible, prioritize projects within sub-regions based on commonly accepted criteria


The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Board deliberates onthe Implementation Strategy, October 1999. JOHN STEERE

o b j e c t i v e s

such as urgency, availability of funds and readypartners, habitat critical to ESA-listed species,and level of existing biological diversity.

6. Cultivate establishment of watershed councilsor watershed-based partnerships to refine andimplement recommendations specific to indi-vidual watersheds/reaches of the Estuary asdefined in the Habitat Goals, as well as strate-gies contained in Restoring the Estuary.

Habitat Management Objective and Strategies

Improve management of bay habitats, seasonalwetlands, and creeks, lakes, and associateduplands on both public and private lands.

Thousands of acres of wetland habitat are currentlyfound in both public and private ownership withvarying degrees of management. A chronic problemfor public agencies is a lack of adequate funding foroperations and maintenance of their refuges andwildlife preserves. Levees cannot be maintained,biologists cannot complete basic inventories, andwardens cannot be hired. The inability to manage

public lands effectively and efficiently has been thecomplaint of public land managers, adjacent land-owners, and critics of public ownership. Theseproblems need to be addressed if the Joint Venturewants to maximize the productivity of the habitatsalready in protective ownership and add to theseholdings.

Management problems on private lands fre-quently stem from a lack of knowledge of the besttechniques that can maximize habitat benefits whilealso managing for agricultural purposes.

Strategies to Improve Management of Wetlands and Riparian Habitat

1. Seek federal, state, and private funding formaintenance and management.

2. Encourage the development and use of “man-agement endowments” as part of constructionbudgets for restoration/enhancement projects.

3. Ensure that enhancement and restoration proj-ects are designed to minimize need for man-agement. Design naturally functioning systemsthat avoid or minimize management and thatevolve to provide a range of ecosystem func-tions in the shortest period of time.

4. Develop partnerships with environmentalorganizations that can implement or help withmanagement (removing non-native plants,replacing tide gates, restoration, monitoring,erecting signs, etc.). For example, Marin Audu-bon completes wetland restoration projects,and the National Audubon Society has anAudubon Refuge Keeper (ARK) program.

5. Develop guidelines for healthy riparian sys-tems and marshes that can be used to educateprivate and public landowners about manage-ment techniques that improve ecosystems.These guidelines should address such issuesas the interface with adjacent uplands, whathealthy riparian zones look like and why theyare important, where to locate trails, etc.


o b j e c t i v e

Youth and community involvement is a key to successfulriparian renewal projects. SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE

Tiger beetle (Cicindela senilis senilis) WES MAFFEI

6. Encourage watershed management planning.

7. Encourage the removal of invasive species.

8. Encourage the use of native plants adjacent towetlands and creeks.

9. Develop a program to connect ranchers withstate and federal programs to enhance creeksand wetlands on agricultural lands.

10. Encourage the Regional Water Quality ControlBoard to evaluate all sections of the Bay, andestablish and enforce Total Maximum DissolvedLoads (TMDLs) for impaired water bodies.

11. Ensure that enhancement and restoration proj-ects are designed to minimize risks of mosqui-to production, flooding, and other threats topublic health and safety.

Funding Objective and Strategies

Strengthen existing and promote new fundingsources for wetlands acquisition, restoration,enhancement, monitoring, and managementprograms.

The Joint Venture partners have estimated the cost ofreaching its objectives over the next 20 years at $1.7billion, or $83.4 million per year for 20 years. The com-mon theme running throughout the ImplementationStrategy is the need to increase the amount of fundingavailable for acquisition, restoration, enhancement,and management of habitat in public and private own-ership. The Joint Venture partners felt that the issuewas so central to its success, that a separate objectiveregarding funding was warranted.

Strategies to Accomplish the Funding Objective

1. Promote and review existing state, federal, andprivate programs that can provide funding forhabitat projects.

2. Leverage existing resources, and coordinateefforts with other agencies, nonprofits, corpo-rations, and landowners.

3. Find new partners to assist with Joint Ventureobjectives.

4. Develop a funding package to cover the cost of implementing the SFBJV Strategy with one-third each coming from state, federal, and private sources.

5. Increase funding to existing programs such asCoastal Conservancy, Wildlife ConservationBoard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NationalPark Service, Natural Resources ConservationService.

6. Develop new state, federal, and local programsthat provide funding for acquisition, restora-tion, enhancement, and management.

7. Coordinate with Caltrans’ mitigation needs tomaximize habitat restoration benefits.

8. Explore additional applications of Administra-tive Civil Liabilities (fine monies), and coordi-nate with agencies and organizations, such asthe Regional Water Quality Control Board, thatcan use fine monies to ensure that priorityprojects are funded from these sources.

Programmatic Linkages Objective and Strategies

Encourage programmatic connections betweenthe Joint Venture’s goals and other regional ini-tiatives that have the potential to positivelyeffect watershed and wetland management andrestoration.

The challenges posed by the relatively high cost ofwetland/riparian protection and restoration in theBay Area can be overcome by the talents and toolsof a wide array of organizations and agencies thathave an interest in habitat preservation. Many of


o b j e c t i v e

o b j e c t i v e

Black-crowned night heron ELISE HILLEND

these are represented on the 27-member SFBJVBoard of Directors. These entities can bring diverseand innovative means, and have the capacity toestablish creative partnerships to accomplish theJoint Venture’s objectives. The preservation, fund-ing, and monitoring objectives can be more fullyrealized where linkages are made to potentially sup-portive programs or activities that may serve toleverage financial resources and enhance utilizationof technical expertise and public outreach orinvolvement. Several sets of strategies to accom-plish the programmatic linkage objective are enu-merated below.

Coordination among Other Conservation Programs

Introduction. The power of partnerships to accom-plish the Joint Venture’s goals goes beyond variouscombinations of organizations on the presentManagement Board. Partnering for the sake of infor-mation exchange, legislative support, and jointgrant requests and requested budget allocationsextends into other conservation planning initiatives,

particularly within the growing network of bird con-servation programs. The following strategies apply:

1. Support the emerging framework for coopera-tive bird conservation in the United Statesthrough promoting an integrative and land-scape approach to bird conservation and anincreased coordination among separate birdconservation initiatives, notably:

• Riparian Bird Conservation Plan for Califor-nia (Partners in Flight—a coalition of migra-tory bird interests)

• United States Shorebird Conservation Plan(Western Hemisphere Shorebird ReserveNetwork)

• North American Waterbirds ConservationPlan.

2. Integrate riparian study areas of Partners inFlight into a regional wetlands monitoring plandatabase being developed for the Bay Area bySan Francisco Estuary Institute and into volun-teer-monitoring websites initiated by the NorthBay Riparian Station and the Friends of theEstuary.


The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture is coordinating with various partners to improve the effectiveness of shorebird con-servation initiatives. SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE

3. Work with the RiparianHabitat Joint Venture toselect significant riparianhabitat projects in theSFBJV geographic scopethat support habitat pro-tection recommendationsof the Riparian Bird Con-servation Plan.

4. Encourage coordinationamong different bird con-servation organizationsand experts in the designof large-scale tidal wet-land restoration to helpmaximize diversity of habi-tat so as to meet foragingneeds of both waterfowland shorebirds, wheredesirable.

Watershed Management Planning and Implementation

Introduction. Wetland and riparian restoration andenhancement projects in the San Francisco Bay Areaoccur within the context of complex land use pat-terns and a rapidly growing urban area. Joint Venturegoals can only be accomplished with increasedrecognition of the need for environmental planningand habitat protection at the municipal and landown-er levels. In addition to leveraging financial and tech-nical resources, the Joint Venture and its partnersshould “leverage” societal trends to promote imple-mentation of a restorative vision for the Bay Area.This means promoting measures that harness andextend the influence of “watershed approaches” toplanning and the “land stewardship ethic” beingadvanced by a wide array of organizations such asthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, resourceconservation districts, and the Regional WaterQuality Control Board. Taking a watershed approachto planning involves a collaborative process and theparticipation of stakeholders, along with the consid-eration of an array of resource management con-cerns and the education of participants aboutresource and water quality issues. The following twosets of recommended actions apply:

Watershed Planning Strategies

1. Refine creek goals for acquisition, restoration,and enhancement contained in the Implemen-

tation Strategy through a collaborative pro-cess similar to that of the Goals Project. Bringriparian baseline for the San Francisco Bayregion to a level consistent with the wetlandsbaseline assessed in Habitat Goals. Clarify cri-teria for the three stewardship categories forriparian habitats (acquisition/ restoration/enhancement).

2. Encourage greater integration of best manage-ment practices (BMPs) for erosion control, andfor floodway and riparian setbacks in land usedevelopment and municipal planning throughthe efforts of the Regional Water QualityControl Board.

3. Enhance riparian corridors that drain into SanFrancisco Bay identified by SFBJV partners,and work with community-based creek groupstoward completing habitat projects that fulfillmultiple objectives, (i.e., that incorporate bio-logical, public safety, access, and/or recreation-al values).

4. Develop a Bay Area–wide Geographic Informa-tion System (GIS) online that combines impor-tant biological and land use data as a digitaltool for promoting the integration of conserva-tion planning with general and specific plandevelopment. Downloadable maps should rep-resent overlays of habitat types of the Bay Area“Ecoatlas” with digital aerial photographs.(Sponsoring agencies could include Asso-ciation of Bay Area Governments, Coastal Com-


Berkeley’s Strawberry Creek before restoration. (1980) GARY MASON

mission, and Bay Conservation and Develop-ment Commission).

5. Support the development of a region-wideVolunteer Monitoring Watershed AssessmentResource Center through the Friends of theEstuary, in cooperation with the Bay AreaStormwater Management Agencies Associa-tion, and the Regional Water Quality ControlBoard. Promote participation by a broad rangeof educational institutions and community-based organizations in its formation and pro-gram implementation.

6. Promote the increase of watershed-level plan-ning initiatives in the form of CoordinatedResource Management Program plans (CRMPs),such as the CRMPs in Napa and Santa ClaraCounties, to enhance the potential for habitatpreservation in concert with water quality pro-tection.

Private Lands Stewardship Strategies

1. Support efforts of Resource ConservationDistricts (RCDs) throughout the Bay Area in

implementing private lands stewardship pro-grams that preserve and enhance riparian cor-ridors and wetlands through landowner educa-tion and assistance.

2. Using private lands stewardship initiatives,seek to cultivate common understandings withlocal landowners, along with the developmentof strategies that include cooperative agree-ments, conservation easements, and grazingmanagement sufficient to protect riparian andwetland habitats.

3. Work cooperatively to enhance waterfowlhabitats through active management toextend seasonal inundation of low-lying pas-ture lands.

4. Encourage the integration of complementaryland uses that also offer a mosaic of habitats,through modification of agricultural practices(integrated pest management, cover crops,BMPs, etc.) and the restoration of riparian andwetland communities.

5. Develop cooperative programs, working withRCDs and the Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service, to manage grazing and restore


The same spot on Strawberry Creek after restoration (1990), a dramatic example of “daylighting” (bringing a buried creekback into the open). GARY MASON

riparian wetlands through fencing and grazingpractices.

6. Work one-to-one with cooperating landownersto complete a range of habitat enhancementdemonstration projects. Such projects shouldbe chosen on the basis of: a) site suitability, b) landowner cooperation, c) availability oflabor, materials, and funds, and d) likelihood ofsuccess.

Clean Water Programs

Introduction. Clean Water Programs are an out-growth of the 1987 revisions to the federal CleanWater Act (CWA). They place greater emphasis oncontrolling non-point source pollutants to improvewater quality throughout the nation’s streams,rivers, lakes, and bays. While “point source con-trols” have been effectively addressed through sani-tary treatment plants, success in non-point sourcecontrols remains elusive in most parts of the nation.Non-point sources of pollution contribute 75 per-cent of pollutants to our waterways, including bac-teria, siltation, metals, pesticides, oil/grease, andorganic chemicals. As a result the EPA enhancedCWA Sections 319 (non-point source) and 320 (estu-ary) grants for financing water quality projects toabate non-point sources, and has promoted water-shed approaches to improving water quality.Wetland and riparian loss are major factors con-tributing to this pollution, since they serve as “biofil-ters” for non-point sources. Significant opportuni-ties exist for coupling Clean Water Programs withwetland restoration, particularly through the SFBJV

developing partnerships with stormwater and wastetreatment utilities and in designing innovative estu-ary programs financed through the Clean Water/State Revolving Funds, the major implementingmechanism of the CWA. Constructed wetlands arewidely used in Europe (500+ facilities) to treatstormwater or wastewater, and there are over 200examples in the United States.

The following strategies apply:

1. Develop an estuary wetlands restoration pro-gram that incorporates Clean Water Programrequirements for reduction of non-pointsources for appropriate subregions, anddesign wetland and riparian projects to incor-porate “biofilter” concepts.

2. Encourage partnership with the Bay AreaStormwater Management Agencies Associa-tion (BASMAA) and others to conduct demon-stration projects for design and implementa-tion of constructed wetlands to treat storm-water runoff from urban uses (e.g., on TreasureIsland and at the mouth of Strawberry Creek inBerkeley).

3. Coordinate with the Bay Area Regional WaterRecycling Program partners to develop appro-priate demonstration projects that utilize recy-cled water to restore or enhance wetland com-munities in the North and South Bays, withoutaltering wetland community types from tidal to freshwater.

4. Explore the potential for financing estuary wet-lands restoration programs around the Bayusing State Revolving Funds (SRF), with repay-ment of SRF loans through stormwater or utili-ty fees, other fees, and/or Park or Water Bonds.

5. Take innovative approaches to financing wet-land projects through the SRF by:

• developing flexible institutional arrange-ments;

• leveraging funding sources, such as theU.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI,Public Law 102-575, CALFED, the WaterResources Development Act, and/or newlegislation;

• integrating the public safety and biologicalobjectives of the project through planningand design process;


Gum plant JACK LAWS

• focusing on developing complementary re-lationships among participating partners.

Base Closures and Realignment

Introduction. The closure of military bases aroundthe Bay Area presents significant opportunities forwetland enhancement and restoration. As most ofthe bases being closed are adjacent to the estuaryand are partially built on fill, they contain substan-tial wetland resources—cumulatively almost 7,000acres (source: Bay Area Defense Conversion ActionTeam, March 1997). In addition, the Public TrustDoctrine and Tidelands Trust Act suggest that wet-lands retention and enhancement be given high con-sideration in base reuse plans. The potential part-nerships can yield important projects. Over 700acres of tidal marsh restoration at Hamilton AirForce Base and over 2,000 acres of wetland protec-tion at Mare Island Naval Shipyard represent two ofthe most extensive urban wetland projects in thenation. Base “realignment,” where an operation isreduced or where one branch of the militaryreplaces another, as at the Concord Naval WeaponsStation, can also provide positive results. Military

services have no mandate to improve wetland habi-tats, only not to fill or degrade them. Thus incentivesare usually needed. Furthermore, soil contaminationon bases presents great challenges to proceedingwith wetland projects.

Among the potential strategies for incorporat-ing wetland projects into base closure or realign-ment programs are the following:

1. Develop wetlands programs in conjunctionwith high-level base staff. Seek to meet multi-ple objectives such as toxic cleanup and environmental stewardship, and to provideincentives. These can include:

• improved financial feasibility of reusethrough open space amenity value of wet-lands

• enhancement of public safety throughreduced flood hazards or seismic risks.

2. Work with base staff to identify sources offunding for wetland projects that do not drawon their operational budgets. Look for sourcesthat can accomplish multiple objectives suchas toxic cleanup and environmental steward-


This levee was breached to reopen a tidal wetland at San Francisco’s Crissy Field (November 1999). CHARLOTTE FIORITO

ship funds for integrated resource manage-ment planning efforts.

3. If feasible and timely, identify and recommendinclusion of selected wetland areas in base reuseplans, through a) the study of habitat values onbases by the Arc Ecology and the Military BaseClosure Environmental Network, and b) theHabitat Goals.

4. Secure consideration of wetland restorationand/or constructed wetlands projects (seeClean Water Program strategies) in the basereuse as part of the “master development agree-ments” using a multiple objective approach.

5. As part of an incentive program, identify oppor-tunities for wetland construction under selec-tive circumstances that could be coupled withtoxic cleanups through bioremediation, that is,where remediation does not involve persistentheavy metals contamination (e.g., Point Molateand Mare Island where contamination is large-ly from petroleum-based distillates).

6. Promote criteria for cleanup of base facilitiesthat allow for a probable future hydrology (i.e., restoration of historic wetlands). Thiswould provide a higher and more beneficialthreshold than reliance on current hydrologyas a criteria.

7. Ensure protection of wetlands and wildliferesources in developing public access plansfor bases.

Communications Objective and Strategies

Develop an inclusive, collaborative, and broad-based public outreach program to communicatethe vision of Restoring the Estuary.

Introduction. Communications are essential tobuilding and implementing a long-term vision torestore the Estuary and its watersheds. Accom-plishing this vision through the objectives of theImplementation Strategy will require extensive com-munications, both externally and internally amongSFBJV partners. This means developing broad-rang-ing and innovative outreach to the public, coupledwith open and constructive interchange among JointVenture partners. Internal communications arefocused on information sharing and mutual assis-tance, and are directed toward improving the level ofcooperation between the SFBJV partners. Public out-reach includes education and awareness building,which, if done well, will translate into the public sup-port that is key to completing wetland projects ofregional significance. This support, based on under-standing the value of wetlands and the need for theirrestoration, can engender new funding sources andimproved cooperation between non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), agencies, and the private sec-tor. Effective outreach will also cultivate more volun-teers for community-based stewardship and restora-tion groups. The more varied and creative the com-munication tools, the more widely the message of“Restoring the Estuary” will be disseminated, andthe greater the collective capacity will be to initiateand maintain wetland projects.

Among communication strategies for Joint Venturepartners to pursue individually and collectively arethe following:

1. Employ a collaborative approach to both publicoutreach and communications among partnersto create a more inclusive climate, which is con-


Planting crib walls on Strawberry Creek, at the University ofCalifornia Berkeley Campus. JOHN STEERE

o b j e c t i v e

ducive to broadening the range ofpartnerships for wetlands.

2. For habitat enhancement andrestoration projects or monitoringprograms, develop partnershipswith schools having field-based edu-cation programs, with NGOs thatoffer ecological educational servic-es, and/or with community-basedgroups that participate in biologicalmonitoring/stewardship efforts.

3. Wherever feasible, link environ-mental education programs ofschools and appropriate NGOs withthe implementation of monitoringof riparian and wetland projects.

4. Conduct high-visibility pilot proj-ects and programs to test, refine,and encourage the use of partner-ships to accomplish habitat goals.To enhance their outreach effec-tiveness, seek to distribute thesewidely around the Bay.

5. Encourage the creation and maintenance ofwatershed councils or estuary restorationgroups as partnerships for habitat improve-ments. They can help design education,enhancement, and stewardship programs forspecific subregions or segments within thosesubregions (potentially using the recommen-dations for these segments in the Habitat Goalsas a framework for action).

6. Develop a website that identifies all habitatprojects on the “EcoAtlas” map of the regionaccording to key information about the proj-ect, contacts, and acreage involved. Link toweb pages of participating partners.

7. Ensure continuance of SFBJV committees—notably Acquisitions and Restoration, PublicOutreach, and Creeks Committees—to pro-mote project coordination and informationsharing on a region-wide basis.

8. Promote informal liaisons with “friends of”wetlands/creeks organizations, and encouragethem to adopt the goals and objectives of theSFBJV as the context for their individualactions.

9. Develop a documentary film that expresses thebiological vitality of the Bay, and illustrates the

habitat goals through computer simulation ofthe past and potential Estuary.

10. Stage a “Restoring the Estuary Festival,” com-posed of SFBJV partners and civic and artsorganizations, around the theme of the renew-al of the San Francisco Bay and its watersheds.Consider conducting it on an annual or bian-nual basis as a regional awareness-building fes-tival of films, tours, exhibitions, and perform-ances about wetlands and the many benefits ofliving by an estuary, recognizing the role ofartists and writers in communicating and ani-mating the restorative vision, and in cultivat-ing a sense of place.

11. Develop and maintain contacts with local officials, professional societies, and specialinterest groups to communicate the goals andobjectives of the Joint Venture.

12. Promote extension education regarding ecolog-ical restoration and related fields throughorganization with the Society of EcologicalRestoration; UC Berkeley and Davis; Hayward,San Francisco, San Jose, and Sonoma StateUniversities, and other universities and colleges.

13. Support locally organized workshops and fieldtours that seek to educate the public about theEstuary and its watersheds.


Volunteers build support for restoration at the grass roots. JOHN STEERE

14. Participate in local events such as watershedtours, harvest festivals, and Earth Day pro-grams.

15. Publicize San Francisco Bay Joint Venture proj-ects and accomplishments in local and region-al media outlets including newsletters, news-papers, and television.

16. Conduct legislative tours for state and con-gressional representatives and their staffs invarious subregions of the Bay to promote thehabitat project opportunities and needs.

17. Work with relevant agencies and nonprofitgroups to develop and implement regional wet-land and riparian monitoring protocols. SeeChapter 5 for details.

Legislative Objective and Strategies

Introduction. The Joint Venture established aLegislative Committee with two objectives: 1) todevelop and conduct a legislative strategy to securefunding and otherwise support projects promotedby the Joint Venture; and 2) to track legislativeissues and advise Management Board on appropri-ate action as needed. In 1999, the LegislativeCommittee expanded to include representation fromthe Central Valley, Intermountain West, and PacificCoast Joint Ventures, in order to better coordinatethese purposes on a statewide basis. The followingstrategies summarize the near-term (five-year)aspects of legislative agendas that are annuallyadopted by the Management Board and whichdefine the SFBJV’s legislative priorities. Thesestrategies reflect the perspectives of the nongovern-mental organization members of the Board andexclude the public agency members who are unableto take positions on legislative issues.

State

1. Secure an annual allocation for appropriatestate agency budgets for the San Francisco BayJoint Venture.

2. Work closely with the Bay Area Open SpaceCouncil to create the Transportation Fund forClean Water, a new vehicle license fee for usein wetland and riparian projects that reducepollutant levels and improve water quality.

Federal

3. Support full funding for the Land and WaterConservation Fund.

4. Support full funding of the North AmericanWetlands Conservation Act.

5. Support legislative efforts that fulfill the goalsof the North American Waterfowl ManagementPlan.

6. Support the passage of and full funding for theEstuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.

7. Maintain efforts to increase funding levels forecosystem restoration in the Bay. Also supportfunding from both state and federal levels.

8. Support legislative efforts to increase fundingfor other migratory bird projects.

Operations and Maintenance

9. Strengthen existing and promote new fundingsources for the management of public landsthrough working with organizations such asthe Bay Area Open Space Council, and consid-er developing tools such as managementendowments.


Monitoring and Evaluation of HabitatGoals Accomplishments

Monitoring and Evaluation of HabitatGoals Accomplishments

The Need for Monitoring

Wetland restoration is a relatively new field, andthe results are anything but certain. Studies

conducted to determine the success rates of wet-land restoration projects in California have indicat-ed that end results often do not meet expectations.Sometimes, expectations for success are met bysome performance criteria, but not by others.Because of a lack of consistent measurements andstandards for wetland restoration, “success” is oftenill-defined. Wetland systems are complex and canrequire decades to reach equilibrium as ecosys-tems. Because of this complexity, project goals andobjective performance criteria need to be properlydefined if the success of any restoration project is tobe accurately measured.

Restoration of “historic” wetlands in the SanFrancisco Bay Estuary is often difficult to achieve.The difficulty is a direct result of the large-scalehuman disturbances that have altered the water-sheds and baylands of the region. These changeshave caused fragmentation among the Bay Area’swetlands, leaving few if any historic wetland com-plexes intact. Present-day restoration projects com-monly aim to create wetland systems that functionwithin modern natural physical and biologicalprocesses, which practitioners recognize as differ-ent from pre-European conditions. In light of the

uncertainties surrounding wetland restoration out-comes, many restoration programs are recommend-ing an adaptive management approach. The CALFEDEcosystem Restoration Program, for example, com-bines regular monitoring and review as a basis formodifying projects throughout the lengthy restora-tion process. The need for this kind of approach isparticularly evident in developing a realistic water-fowl monitoring program, as outlined in the“Waterfowl Benefits” section of Chapter 3.

There are many ongoing and proposed tidalrestoration projects throughout the San FranciscoBay Estuary. Perhaps the largest issue limiting thesuccess of these projects is the inability to under-stand the various restoration techniques and theireffects on wetland habitats and the species utilizingthem. It is difficult to gauge the effectiveness ofmanaging for special status and native species if onelacks basic knowledge of habitat functions, speciesrequirements, and complex ecological interactions.Tidal wetland restorations can be difficult to designand there are few projects that can be used as mod-els. In addition, intricate geomorphological andhydrological details must be properly addressed ifsuccess is to be attained.

Because most wetland restoration projectsare complex, few are considered to be completewhen construction has concluded. Documentationof how a wetland ecosystem is changing, in whichdirection, and by what magnitude, is necessary to

5

KENNETH GARDINER

determine long-term success. Despite its vital role,monitoring has traditionally received little attentionin pre- or post-project planning. Funding amountsfor monitoring are often less than one to two per-cent of total project costs. This figure is much lessthan the 10–20 percent level of funding needed forcomprehensive monitoring coverage through thelife of a project. Monitoring, with sufficient fundingto complete the task, will be a critical component ofall Joint Venture restoration projects.

The San Francisco Bay Regional MonitoringProgram for Wetlands (WRMP) is being designed toprovide the framework necessary to monitor the suc-cess of the Joint Venture habitat projects. The WRMPis a cooperative undertaking by the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, the San Francisco EstuaryInstitute, the California Coastal Conservancy, andseveral regulatory and resource agencies and non-governmental organizations. The WRMP representsthe next step, following the Baylands EcosystemHabitat Goals, in implementing the 1993 Compre-hensive Conservation and Management Plan for theSan Francisco Estuary. The WRMP will provide acomprehensive set of protocols for field data collec-tion and quality assurance/quality control, as well asthe management, interpretation, and dissemination

of monitoring data. The WRMP will prepare two com-ponents, one for monitoring “ambient” conditions inexisting wetlands and the other for monitoringrestoration projects.

Monitoring Objectives and Strategies

Apply general guidelines for monitoring asdefined by the Regional Monitoring Program forWetlands and promote their use at a project levelthroughout the region.

Include monitoring as part of all habitat restora-tion and enhancement projects.

Evaluate the effects on waterfowl of implement-ing the SFBJV habitat goals and make recom-mendations to ensure viable populations.

Provide for regional coordination and communi-cation of monitoring and evaluation of results toenable adaptive management of existing projectsand to foster improved design for future projects.

Wherever feasible, include monitoring costs inconstruction budgets for habitat projects throughmonitoring endowments or other means.

There are many participants in the various projectscurrently taking place throughout the Estuary.Various governmental agencies, nongovernmentalorganizations, businesses, and individuals areinvolved in design, construction, and monitoring of wetland restoration, creation, or enhancementprojects. Because each project is unique, the prob-lems encountered and successes achieved varygreatly. Biophysical monitoring is a way to measurethe progress of a project towards achieving itsintended goals. But many different approaches tomonitoring and project evaluation exist, as does awide variety of project goals. Criteria for whichparameters to monitor, how to monitor them, andhow frequently or how long they should be moni-tored also vary widely. Consequently, there are nostandard guidelines for monitoring parameters andprotocols, both of which are needed to measureproject success.

Two of the most important roles of the SFBJVwill be to promote goals and to standardize guide-


o b j e c t i v e s

Volunteers monitor invertebrates in a streambed. JOHN STEERE

lines for biophysical monitoring in wetland restora-tion. Neither area has received sufficient emphasis inpast restoration projects. Success will require 1)funding, 2) preconstruction monitoring to determineexisting natural resource values, and 3) carefullydesigned, repeatable postconstruction monitoringthat reveals trends from construction through thecompletion of the restoration process, decades later.The SFBJV will serve both as a focus for wetlandrestoration in the local community and as a resourcefor sharing information about problems encounteredand results achieved in wetland projects.

The following are strategies to accomplishthe monitoring and evaluation objectives.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Restoration Projects

1. Establish and maintain a list of projects, agen-cies, or individuals in charge of projects, mon-itoring techniques used, and the source formonitoring results for wetland projects withinthe Joint Venture region.

2. Determine and evaluate past or existing moni-toring programs or guidance documents forproposed Joint Venture projects, and ensurethat sufficient monitoring and evaluation fund-ing is included in all funding requests for allJoint Venture projects.

3. Work with the wetland restoration communityto establish standardized wetland monitoringrecommendations. Include cost estimates foreach step of the monitoring process.

4. Support an annual meeting of restoration prac-titioners and wetland researchers to presentmonitoring results and evaluation of individualprojects.

5. Establish and maintain a list of universities,schools, and other groups interested in adopt-

ing projects or portions of projects for long-term monitoring.

Research

6. Develop a summary of information on wetlandrestoration topics within different disciplines(e.g., hydrology, wildlife, fisheries) relevant forunderstanding regional wetland diversity andfor individual restoration projects.

7. Create a list of research needs to support a bet-ter understanding of the function of wetlandsof the region and to support individual restora-tion projects. Review annually.

8. Prioritize research projects, estimate costs forfunding by Joint Venture partners, and encour-age funding support.

9. Support pilot restoration projects to developmonitoring techniques and evaluate such wet-land design features as size, salinity, habitatelements, and minimizing human disruption.

Chapter 5—Monitoring and Evaluation of Habitat Goals Accomplishments 61

In-stream water quality monitoring JOHN STEERE

Ongoing and Potential WetlandHabitat Projects

The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture partnershave been undertaking a wide array of wetland

projects throughout the region. The following listingof their habitat projects comprises 43,000 acres ofongoing and potential initiatives. It demonstratesboth the great level of activity and the promise forwetland and riparian restoration and enhancementthroughout the geographic scope of the JointVenture. To underscore the reality and the potentialof the SFBJV’s efforts, this listing is divided between“Ongoing and Pending Habitat Projects” and“Potential Projects for 2001 and Beyond.” These cat-egories serve to distinguish near-term initiativesfrom long-term opportunities.

The projects listed below are keyed to Figure6-1, “San Francisco Bay Joint Venture HabitatProjects: 2000.” These are partnership-based andare grouped by subregion, beginning with the NorthBay, moving clockwise around the Bay. The projectcodes refer to these subregions, where “N” meansNorth Bay, “CB” equals Central Bay, etc. Projectdescriptions are also keyed to this figure; they are areasonable representation of the projects that arebeing undertaken or contemplated around the BayArea. While this listing is intended to be compre-hensive, it is not exhaustive. In addition, not all proj-ects shown in Figure 6-1 are described here. Foridentification purposes, “High Activity” wetlandsand creek projects shown on the map have beendenoted in the project title. The term “High ActivityProject” represents habitat projects where the JointVenture is active.

Ongoing and Pending Habitat Projects

The projects below are well distributed amongacquisition, enhancement, or restoration. They canbe regarded as in process or partially completed, butgenerally in need of additional funding for comple-tion. Together, these habitat projects constituteroughly 31,400 acres.

North Bay Subregion (N)

N2. Triangle Marsh, Marin County. The 31-acreTriangle Marsh property, near Corte Madera, is aremnant tidal area (with a tidal panne) along theMarin Baylands. Marin Audubon initiated the proj-ect and it was recently purchased with grants fromthe Coastal Conservancy and Marin Open SpaceDistrict. The marsh provides habitat for the endan-gered California clapper rail and shorebirds andwaterfowl migrating along the Pacific Flyway. It willbecome a part of the expanded San Pablo BayNational Wildlife Refuge (Project N9).

N7. Hamilton Wetlands Restoration, Novato, MarinCounty. The Coastal Conservancy and Bay Conser-vation and Development Commission are taking thelead on securing the transfer of 700 acres from theformer Hamilton Army Airfield to a public resourceagency. The commission is completing a plan for the

6Ongoing and Potential Wetland

Habitat Projects

JOHN STEERE

restoration of tidal and sea-sonal wetlands. With the pur-chase of the adjoining 1,600-acre Bel Marin Keys parcel inprocess, the project can beexpected to restore 2,300acres of habitat.

N9. San Pablo Bay Nation-al Wildlife Refuge Expan-sion, Marin County. (HighActivity) The San Pablo BayNational Wildlife Refugeexpanded its boundaries in1996 by approximately 7,000acres. The Marin AudubonSociety and the Joint Ventureare working with the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service toexpand the refuge to theMarin Baylands where numer-ous restorable properties areproposed for development. Once added to theRefuge, these properties can be restored to tidal andseasonal wetlands.

N10. San Antonio Creek—George Googins Project,Sonoma County. The Southern Sonoma CountyResource Conservation District is overseeing theenhancement of 50 acres of stream bank along SanAntonio Creek. The project will apply various tech-niques including revegetation to control sediment in order to improve salmon rearing and spawninghabitat.

N11.1 Petaluma River, Marin and Sonoma County.(High Activity) The City of Petaluma has been activein the acquisition and restoration of riparian habitatand diked baylands along the portions of thePetaluma River within its limits. The SFBJV is work-ing with the Southern Sonoma Resource Conser-vation District (RCD), which completed a WatershedPlan in 1999, in convening a broad public-privatepartnership to foster riparian and land stewardship,and tidal restoration projects all along the river.

N12. Petaluma Marsh Expansion, Marin County.Marin Audubon Society and the Coastal Conser-vancy are coordinating the acquisition and restora-tion of 180 acres of diked land on the Marin side ofthe Petaluma River.

N13. Rush Creek/Cemetery Marsh Enhancement,Novato, Marin County. Marin Audubon Society has

raised funds through the Marin ConservationFoundation, the Coastal Conservancy, and the FWSto enhance wetlands through improved tidal inflowto adjoining properties totaling 300 acres. The landis owned by the California Department of Fish andGame and Marin Open Space District.

N14. Scottsdale Marsh, Novato, Marin County. TheCity of Novato has been restoring a 41-acre marshconsisting of emergent, seasonal, riparian, openwater, upland transitional habitat, and a 14-acrepond.

N15. Parcels at Olive and Atherton Avenues, MarinCounty. This project comprises 144 acres of criticalwetland acquisition that will help preclude urbanexpansion into upland transitional marshes that sur-round San Pablo Bay. Restoration activities includeconstructing levees, designing and constructingwetlands, and installing water-control structures.

N16 North Parcel, Sonoma County. This is a 470-acre former agricultural parcel located in SonomaCounty. The project will restore and enhance sea-sonal wetlands, with modifications to activitiesincluding installing water control systems andrecontouring wetland pond bottoms. The restoredparcel will provide alternative roosting and foraginghabitat for wintering shorebirds and waterfowl.

N17.1 Schellville Restoration and Flood ControlProject, Sonoma County. The Southern Sonoma


Corte Madera Marsh in Mill Valley prior to restoration (May 1992) BARBARA SALZMAN

County Resource Conservation District is working toacquire and restore 700 acres of tidal wetlands alonglower Sonoma Creek. The multi-objective restora-tion and flood protection project would provide pro-tection for light and commercial industry, and resi-dential and local infrastructure.

N17.2 Carriger Creek, Sonoma County. TheSouthern Sonoma County Resource ConservationDistrict is working with property owners to restore500 acres of riparian habitat along Carriger Creek.The Creek, which has historically provided goodspawning habitat for steelhead, has experiencedsevere erosion and is down-cutting rapidly.

N17.3 Sonoma Creek (Various Sites), SonomaCounty. The Sonoma Ecology Center, The SouthernSonoma County Resource Conservation District, andvarious public and private agencies are working onthe restoration and enhancement of numerous sitesalong Sonoma Creek. A restoration and enhance-ment plan will focus on creek restoration, vineyarddemonstration projects, and habitat monitoring.

N18. Camp Two, Sonoma County. The WildlifeConservation Board recently acquired two Camp Twoproperties totaling 608 acres. These properties arebeing restored for floodplain and wetlands habitat.

N19. Tolay Creek, Sonoma County. This projectreturned tidal flows to Tolay Creek, restoring 435acres to tidal marsh. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service is the lead agency, butmany partners have con-tributed to the completion ofthis project.

N20. Lower Tubbs IslandRestoration, Sonoma County.The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService is restoring 72 acresof diked agricultural bay-lands to wetlands, high salt marsh, and transitionaluplands with assistance fromDucks Unlimited. The parcelis immediately adjacent toSan Pablo Bay and whenrestored will provide criticalroosting and foraging habitatfor wintering shorebirds.Restoration activities includeengineering and design, build-ing a new levee inland from

the Bay, then breaching the bayside levee.

N23. San Pablo Bay North American WetlandConservation Act Grant Sites, North Bay Counties.(High Activity) Under this grant, 13,874 acres of variedwetland habitat types critically important for migrat-ing and wintering waterfowl will be enhanced andrestored. Newly constructed lagoon areas will pro-vide protected open water habitat for waterfowl untilthose areas revert to tidal marsh. Managed and sea-sonal wetlands will increase the available habitat forforaging and roosting waterfowl. Among the restora-tion and enhancement sites included in the grant arethe following: North Parcel/Leonard Ranch (ProjectN16); the Lower Tubbs Island Setback Levee project(Part of Project N20), and Ringstrom Bay, Camp 2,Pond 8, and Huichica Creek Units of the Napa-SonomaMarshes Wildlife Area. These last four habitatenhancement projects are being undertaken by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game and DucksUnlimited in order to enhance 4,691 acres of a mosa-ic of wetlands via improved water control.

N25. Cullinan Ranch, Vallejo, Solano County. This1,500-acre ranch was purchased by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service for the San Pablo Bay NationalWildlife Refuge several years ago. The Service isworking with Ducks Unlimited to complete the firstphase of tidal restoration.

N27. Mare Island and North Bay Discovery Center,Vallejo, Solano County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Chapter 6—Ongoing and Potential Wetland Habitat Projects 65

Corte Madera Marsh in Mill Valley after restoration (Sept. 1992) BARBARA SALZMAN


Service will acquire 162 acresof tidal and seasonal marshfrom the closed Mare IslandNaval Station. The Servicewill lease approximately 2,000additional acres from theState Lands Commission. TheService is also working withthe community to developthe North Bay DiscoveryCenter.

N29. Napa River FloodControl Project, Napa, NapaCounty. The Napa CountyFlood Control District, work-ing with the community,Coastal Conservancy, Depart-ment of Fish and Game, NapaCounty Land Trust, ArmyCorps of Engineers, and sev-eral other agencies, has com-pleted a flood control/habitat restoration plan thatwill restore approximately 950 acres of wetlandhabitat along the Napa River as part of an environ-mentally oriented approach to flood control. Withfunding matches from federal, state, and localsources established, the project has begun imple-mentation.

N30. American Canyon Acquisition and Restora-tion, American Canyon, Napa County. (HighActivity) The City of American Canyon and theDepartment of Fish and Game have recently com-pleted the purchase of 460 acres from the Port ofOakland. This will permit a floodplain connection tothe Napa River and provide a foundation for tidaland seasonal wetland restoration.

N37.2. Lower Wildcat Creek, San Pablo, ContraCosta County. (High Activity) County Flood Control,Urban Creeks Council, and other organizations areworking on a habitat restoration plan for 100 acresof disturbed habitat along the lower regions ofWildcat Creek. The plan would include restoration offisheries, floodplain management, and an environ-mental youth program.

Suisun Subregion (S)

S3. Martinez Regional Shoreline Marsh Restora-tion, Martinez, Contra Costa County. The East Bay

Regional Park District (EBRPD), Caltrans, ContraCosta Mosquito and Vector Control District, and theCity of Martinez have begun implementation ofrestoration and enhancement of 50 acres of tidalmarsh within the Martinez Regional Shoreline.

S5. McNabney (Shell) Marsh, Martinez, Contra CostaCounty. The McNabney Marsh Management Adviso-ry Committee, with the Contra Costa Mosquito andVector Control District as the lead agency, is restoringand enhancing the 200-acre Shell Marsh by improvingtidal flushing. The project provides ancillary benefitsfor flood reduction and mosquito control.

S7. Point Edith Wetlands Project, Contra CostaCounty. The Contra Costa County Mosquito andVector Control District (CCCMVD), California Depart-ment of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Navy are restor-ing tidal action to portions of 3,000 acres of privateand public land, including the Concord NavalWeapons Station. Current activities include wetlandrestoration pilot projects and feasibility studies.

S9. North Contra Costa County Shoreline. (HighActivity) This subregional ecological initiative is pri-marily focused on joint use resource managementproposals for tidal wetlands and riparian restorationon the Concord Naval Weapons Station, thatinvolves a variety of federal and state agencies, aswell as special districts such as the EBRPD andCCCMVCD. It also incorporates the partnerships

Gallinas Creek prior to restoration (Spring, 1992) BARBARA SALZMAN


and geographic scope of other major wetland sitesalong the south Shore of Suisun Bay including theMartinez Regional Shoreline (S3), Point Edith (S7),and Bay Point (S10).

S10. Bay Point Restoration Project, Bay Point,Contra Costa County. The East Bay Regional ParkDistrict is nearing completion of a plan for tidalmarsh restoration on this 150-acre site near Pittsburg.

S13. Big Break Acquisitions, Oakley, Contra CostaCounty. The East Bay Regional Park District hasacquired 2,000 acres of Delta wetlands. A land useplan has been prepared and funding for wetlandsrestoration is being sought.

S14. Delta Science Center Wetland Restoration,Oakley, Contra Costa County. The East Bay Region-al Park District, Mt. Diablo Audubon, Contra CostaMosquito and Vector Control District, and theIronhouse Sanitary District are the major partners increating the Delta Science Center. The center hasbeen envisioned as a nonprofit research and educa-tional facility offering visitors an opportunity tolearn more about the Delta and participate in devel-oping solutions to Delta problems. The Center hasthe potential to restore tidal and riparian habitat toapproximately 3,500 acres.

S23.1 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration, ContraCosta County. (High Activity) Contra Costa County

Flood Control District is work-ing with a range of federal andstate agencies, municipalities,and the Friends of the Creeksto initiate a pilot project torestore a riparian ecosystemon the creek. Corps of Engi-neers support is being soughtfor a number of potentialactions including removal of fish barriers (drop struc-tures), creation of a low-flowchannel, resolution of sedi-mentation problems, andrestoration of tidal action atthe mouth of the creek.

S23.3 Walnut Creek, WalnutCreek, Contra Costa County.Friends of the Creeks and theCity of Walnut Creek havecompleted a master restora-

tion and enhancement plan for the downtown sec-tion of Walnut Creek. The plan includes a trail alongthe entire downtown section of the creek, removal ofinvasive plant species, and subsequent revegetation.

Central Bay Subregion (CB)

CB13. Sausal Creek, Oakland, Alameda County.(High Activity) The Aquatic Outreach Institute, Friendsof Sausal Creek, the City of Oakland, and other publicand private entities have undertaken two actions toenhance this urban creek. The first is to develop anexotics eradication program, which includes thedevelopment of an Exotic Species Management Planand the restoration of areas most in need of preserva-tion, slope stabilization, and revegetation. The secondmajor activity consists of developing a watershedmanagement plan for this 2,656-acre watershed.Currently, restoration work is occurring on six acres.The overall watershed plan will focus on naturalresource and public access assessments, definingappropriate management actions and time frames toensure the plan is a success.

CB16. Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, Ala-meda County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service inconjunction with Golden Gate Audubon are request-ing transference of 565 acres of land from thedecommissioned naval air station. If successful, the

Gallinas Creek after restoration (Fall 1992) BARBARA SALZMAN

ID Habitat Project Name Acreage ID Habitat Project Name Acreage

Key to San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Habitat Projects (by Subregion)

Arroyo Corte Madera (Mill Valley)Triangle Marsh - Corte MaderaCorte Madera CreekMadera Bay ParkCanalways (San Rafael)North Bay Riparian StationHamilton Wetlands RestorationBel Marin KeysSan Pablo Bay NWR Expansion

(among sites are Bahia and Silveira Ranch)San Antonio Creek - George Googins ProjectPetaluma River Watershed PlanPetaluma RiverPetaluma Marsh ExpansionRush Creek/Cemetery Marsh EnhancementScottsdale MarshParcels at Olive and Atherton AvenuesNorth ParcelSonoma Creek Watershed PlanSchellville Restoration and Flood Control Proj.Carriger CreekSonoma Creek (Various Sites)Camp TwoTolay CreekLower Tubbs Island RestorationTubbs Island ExpansionSan Pablo Bay Watershed StudySan Pablo Bay North American Wetland

Conservation Act Grant SitesPartnership for the San Pablo BaylandsCullinan RanchNapa/Sonoma Marsh RestorationMare Island and North Bay Discovery CenterNapa River Watershed PlanNapa River Habitat AssessmentNapa River Flood Control ProjectAmerican Canyon Acquisition and RestorationRiver ParkRodeo CreekPinole CreekPoint Pinole Wetlands EnhancementSan Pablo Bay Wetlands RestorationSan Pablo CreekWildcat Creek WatershedWildcat Creek - San PabloLower Wildcat Creek

Elkhorn Creek Habitat RestorationBenicia Creek and WetlandMartinez Regional Shoreline Marsh RestorationAlhambra Creek Watershed PlanMcNabney (Shell) MarshPacheco MarshPoint Edith Wetlands ProjectConcord NWS Wetlands RestorationNorth Contra Costa County ShorelineBay Point Restoration ProjectDelta Channel IslandsJulia Cox Freeman Wetland PreserveBig Break AcquisitionsDelta Science Center Wetland RestorationMarsh Creek Restoration Master PlanLower Marsh Creek - OakleyMarsh Creek Griffith ParkUpper Marsh Creek - BrentwoodKellogg CreekEast Antioch CreekKirker CreekMt. Diablo and Galindo CreeksMt. Diablo CreekLower Mt. Diablo CreekMitchell CreekGallindo CreekWalnut Creek - Pacheco SloughLower Walnut Creek RestorationWalnut Creek - Pleasant HillWalnut Creek - Walnut CreekTice CreekSan Ramon Creek - Walnut CreekSan Ramon Creek - AlamoSan Ramon Creek - DanvilleGrayson CreekLafayette CreekLas Trampas Creek - Walnut CreekLas Trampas Creek - LafayetteGrizzly CreekOld Jonas Hill CreekGreen Valley CreekSycamore CreekPine CreekLower Pine CreekChupcan Preserve Wetlands Restoration

431NS585NA9001,6008,000

NSNANS18030041144430NANSNSNS60843572NANA13,874

NA1,5009,0002,162NANA95046048NSNS400100NS175NSNS

24100NA2001402,000700*NS150NS81,0003,500NANS7NSNSNSNSNSNSNS4NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS36NSNS

Central Bay (CB)CB1CB2CB3CB4CB5CB6CB7CB8CB9CB10CB10.1CB11CB12CB13CB14CB15CB16CB17CB18CB19CB20CB21CB22CB23CB24CB25CB25.1CB26CB27CB28CB29CB30CB31CB32CB33CB34CB35

South Bay (SB)SB1SB1.1SB2SB3SB4SB5SB6SB7SB7.1SB8SB9SB10SB11SB12SB13SB14SB15SB16SB17SB18SB19SB20SB21SB22SB23SB24SB25

San Mateo Coast (C)C1C1.1C2C3C4C5C6

Regional Projects WARCSFBRWMPSpartina

Arundo

North Bay (N)N1N2N3N4N5N6N7N8N9

N10N11N11.1N12N13N14N15N16N17N17.1N17.2N17.3N18N19N20N21N22N23

N24N25N26N27N28N28.1N29N30N31N32N33N34N35N36N37N37.1N37.2

Suisun (S)S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14S15S15.1S15.2S15.3S16S17S18S19S20S20.1S21S22S23S23.1S23.2S23.3S23.4S23.5S23.6S23.7S23.8S23.9S23.10S23.11S23.12S23.13S23.14S23.15S24S24.1S25

Baxter CreekCerrito CreekVillage CreekCodornices CreekSchoolhouse CreekStrawberry CreekDerby CreekPotter CreekClaremont CreekTemescal Creek - EmeryvilleTemescal Creek - OaklandGlen Echo CreekEastshore State ParkSausal CreekLeona CreekLake MerrittAlameda Naval Air StationCourtland CreekArroyo Viejo CreekSan Leandro CreekSan Lorenzo CreekOyster BayYosemite Creek - Candlestick PointBayview Hunters Point ShipyardIndia Basin - West and EastIslais Creek - Yosemite CreekIslais Creek - Glen CanyonPier 94 NorthMission Creek - San FranciscoTreasure IslandSF Bay and Delta Estuary Center at Pier 45Crissy FieldTennessee HollowLobos CreekMountain LakeGolden Gate Park LakesLake Merced

Alamo Creek - DanvilleAlamo Creek - San RamonMartin Canyon CreekTehan CreekOliver PropertyWhale’s TailEden Landing Ecological ReserveSouthern Alameda Creek Watershed PlanAlameda Creek RestorationTriangle Marsh - NewarkMayhews LandingLaguna Creek RestorationMission CreekDon Edwards SF Bay NWRKnapp TractNew Chicago MarshUlistac Natural AreaLower Guadalupe RiverCoyote CreekSaratoga CreekStevens CreekCargill Salt EnhancementPalo Alto Harbor PointSan Francisquito Creek CRMPRavenswood PreserveBair IslandBurlingame Waterfront Park

San Pedro Creek Flood Control ProjectSan Pedro Creek Watershed PlanPillar Point MarshPillarcitos Creek Watershed Plan ImplementationSan Gregorio Creek Riparian RestorationPescadero MarshPescadero/Butano Watershed Plan

Watershed Assessment Resource CenterSF Bay Rgnl. Wetlands Monitoring ProgramSupport for Invasive Spartina Control Efforts

in San Francisco BaySupport for Arundo Donax Control

72NS5NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS100NSNSNA565NSNSNSNS9025183.4NSNS4NS40NA20NSNS1412

NSNS81632449835NANS3108NSNSNS4509040NSNSNSNSNS7.2NA2001,6008.8

15NA23NANA345NA

NANANA

NANA = Not Applicable, NS= Not Specified

*700 acres in S8 are part of S7 acres.NOTES:1. Projects are numbered according to their subregion within the SF Bay Joint

Venture geographic scope and are generally arranged in a clockwise direction.2. Habitat projects include acquisition, enhancement, and restoration, and include

watershed planning initiatives and regional ecological education facilities.3. Multiple creek habitat projects within the same watershed are noted by decimal

points after the whole number.4. Project points in the bay refer to projects with multiple sites or that are regional in

nature.

Wetlands project

High Activity Wetlands project

Riparian / Creek Project

High Activity Creek Project

c/o Coastal Conservancy1330 Broadway, Suite 1100

Oakland, CA 94612(510) 286-6767

Special Appreciation to theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

for its funding support for map production.

Habitat Classifications:

San Francisco BayJoint Venture Habitat Projects

2000

Deep Bay

Shallow Bay

Developed / Undeveloped Fill

Public and PrivatelyProtected Lands

Public Protected Habitat

County Lines

Major Highways

State Highways

Other Roads

Other Map Features:

Bay Habitatincludes tidal flats and marshes,beaches, lagoons, and salt ponds

Seasonal Wetlandincludes diked "baylands" usuallyfarmed or grazed (which can berestored to tidal activity), vernal pools,and moist grasslands

Creek, Lake, or Pondincludes willow groves, riparianareas, and perennial ponds

Map produced by GreenInfo Network.

Printed July 17, 2000. www.greeninfo.org

Figure 6.1Figure 6-1


transfer will protect 49 acres of tidal and non-tidalmarsh, as well as upland habitat for the least tern.

CB23. Bayview Hunters Point Shipyard, San Fran-cisco, San Francisco County. Golden Gate Audubon,Port of San Francisco, Coastal Conservancy, Save SanFrancisco Bay Association, and several communitygroups are restoring 15 acres of tidal and seasonalwetlands in Bayview Hunters Point.

CB30. Crissy Field, San Francisco, San FranciscoCounty. The National Park Service is restoring 20 acres of tidal marsh located within the his-toric Presidio and adjacent to the mouth of SanFrancisco Bay.

South Bay Subregion (SB)

SB6. Eden Landing Ecological Reserve, Hayward,Alameda County. The California Department ofFish and Game and East Bay Regional Park Districtare close to completing the restoration plan for this835-acre property, purchased in 1996. Restorationwill include both tidal and seasonal habitat.

SB7. Southern Alameda Creek Watershed Plan, Ala-meda County. The Alameda County Resource Con-servation District has completed a watershed planand has begun riparian restoration and erosion con-trol projects along Alameda Creek and its tributaries.

SB8. Triangle Marsh, Newark, Alameda County.Ducks Unlimited is partnering with the Fish andWildlife Service in implementing the restoration oftidal and seasonal wetlands for this 3-acre parcelwithin the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge.

SB14. New Chicago Marsh, Santa Clara County.(High Activity) The Santa Clara Valley AudubonSociety is leading a campaign to protect 70 acres oftidal wetlands, as well as to restore to salt marshanother 20 acres that had been illegally filled. Onceaccomplished, both areas would become part of theSan Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

SB15 Ulistac Natural Area, Santa Clara, Santa ClaraCounty. This 40-acre project involves the City ofSanta Clara, the county open space authority, andSanta Clara Audubon in restoring wetland and ripar-ian habitat along the Guadalupe River. A restorationmaster plan that includes public access and educa-tion has been adopted; riparian and oak woodlandplanting is underway.

SB16. Lower Guadalupe River, Santa Clara County.(High Activity) The Santa Clara Valley Water Districtis currently exploring restoration and enhancementoptions to the Lower Guadalupe River. The designand construction of this flood protection project isexpected to be completed by 2001 and will encom-pass more than 10 miles of shoreline and 84 acres ofwetlands and aquatic habitat.

SB24. Bair Island, Redwood City, San MateoCounty. The Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST),U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), WildlifeConservation Board (WCB), and others have com-pleted the acquisition of 1,600 acres for addition tothe Refuge. The FWS and WCB have acquired it fromPOST. FWS has initiated a public process for prepar-ing the master plan for Bair Island’s restoration andmanagement.

San Mateo Coast Subregion (C)

C2. Pillar Point Marsh, San Mateo County. (HighActivity) The San Mateo County Parks Division andthe California Habitat Fund purchased 17 acres ofmarshland in 1996. Since then, the Parks Divisionhas completed a master plan for the restoration ofthe marsh area. In addition, there are 42 acres of sur-rounding land that could be acquired but to datehave been retained by the owners. Much of the PillarPoint Marsh area has been adversely impacted byan access road, the Half Moon Bay County Airport,and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Breakwater atPillar Point Harbor.

Regional Projects

Support for Invasive Spartina Control Efforts inSan Francisco Bay. (High Activity) The CoastalConservancy is coordinating the Invasive SpartinaProject, a comprehensive Bay-wide effort to eradi-cate four species of the exotic cordgrass from theSan Francisco Bay Estuary. To date, more than 1,000acres of exotic Spartina (primarily eastern cord-grass, Spartina alterniflora) have become estab-lished in the Bay’s marshes and tidal flats, particu-larly in the South Bay. Alterniflora is considered an“ecological engineer” and could significantly alterthe estuary ecosystem, compromising the successof tidal restoration efforts if not controlled.

Support for Arundo donax Control. Team ArundoDel Norte is a coalition of government managers, sci-


entists, and environmentalistsformed in 1996 to battle this inva-sive reed. The team, led by scien-tists from the USEPA, San Fran-cisco Estuary Institute, and theSonoma Ecology Center, has con-ducted eradication efforts on theRussian River and Sonoma Creek,and has several other removalprojects in the works. It is alsomapping the spread of Arundoand educating the communityabout this dangerous plant.

Watershed Assessment ResourceCenter. The center, sponsored bythe Regional Water Quality ControlBoard and the Coastal Conser-vancy, is housed at the Friends ofthe Estuary headquarters, andprovides technical assistance tograssroots creeks organizations. Itis also working to develop regional,scientifically based protocols for volunteer monitor-ing and to assist with cooperative agreements.

San Francisco Bay Regional Wetlands MonitoringProgram. The Coastal Conservancy, San FranciscoEstuary Institute, San Francisco Bay Regional WaterQuality Control Board, and U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency are part of this new interagency initiative. The Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program(RMP) is intended to provide the scientific under-standing necessary to create, restore, and enhancewetlands of the San Francisco Bay Estuary throughobjective monitoring, research, and communication.Starting with a pilot program, researchers will con-duct both ambient monitoring and project monitor-ing. To guide the program’s development, organizershave convened a Wetlands RMP steering committee(composed of senior staff of the wetlands agencies ofthe region), and focus teams (of scientists).

Potential Projects for 2001 and Beyond

This set of habitat projects includes more riparianprojects, and plans for a range of wetland acquisi-tions, enhancements, and restorations. As “potentialprojects,” these should be seen as near-term to long-term opportunities. Many projects are in some stage

of planning, but with much work and funding stillneeded to implement them. Together these habitatprojects comprise about 12,000 acres.

North Bay Subregion (N)

N5. Canalways, San Rafael, Marin County. The SanRafael Canalways is an 85-acre marsh of pickleweed,mudflats, and shallow water which provides wildlifehabitat for the endangered salt marsh harvest mouseand over 100 species of resident or migrating birds,as well as public access, through a segment of theBay Trail. The Friends of Canalways Wetlands isworking with the City of San Rafael and the AudubonSociety to provide funding and support for site pro-tection through donations, the Park Bond, and thefederal Land and Water Conservation Fund.

N6. North Bay Riparian Station, Marin County. Therecently created riparian station is a cooperativeproject of The Bay Institute, Wildlife ConservationBoard, the Army Corps of Engineers Bay Model, andseveral others. The focus of this project will be onthe monitoring and restoration of watersheds inMarin and Sonoma Counties.

N22. San Pablo Bay Watershed Study, North BayCounties. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers isundertaking a study of ecological restoration oppor-tunities in San Pablo Bay including Marin, Sonoma,

Corte Madera Ecological Reserve at the outset of restoration (Fall 1990)BARBARA SALZMAN


Napa, Solano, and Contra Costa Counties. Once thestudy is completed, additional federal, state, andprivate funds will be sought to implement restora-tion recommendations.

N24. Partnership for the San Pablo Baylands,Sonoma County. The Save San Francisco BayAssociation, funded by the San Francisco BayRegional Water Quality Control Board, established apartnership among agencies and landowners thatresulted in a Stewardship Plan. The plan balancesthe needs of agriculture with wildlife protection inthe watersheds of Marin, Sonoma, and NapaCounties.

N26. Napa/Sonoma Marsh Restoration, NapaCounty. The California Department of Fish andGame and the Coastal Conservancy are working withstate, federal, and private partners to restore and/orenhance 9,000 acres of salt ponds.

N28. Napa River Watershed Plan, Napa County. TheNapa Resource Conservation District facilitated thedevelopment of this stakeholder plan. Implemen-tation of the plan’s recommendations has been pro-gressing steadily, including riparian restoration, ero-sion control, and vineyard demonstration projects.

N31. River Park, Vallejo, Solano County. TheGreater Vallejo Recreation District is planning torestore 22 acres of tidal marsh and 26 acres of

upland habitat along the NapaRiver.

N34. Point Pinole WetlandsEnhancement, Pinole, ContraCosta County. The East BayRegional Park District has pur-chased close to 400 acres of shore-line property that can be restoredto tidal marsh.

N35. San Pablo Bay WetlandsRestoration, Contra Costa County.The East Bay Regional ParkDistrict has purchased 100 acresof San Pablo Bay shoreline thatwill be restored to tidal marsh.

Suisun Subregion (S)

S4. Alhambra Creek WatershedPlan, Contra Costa County. The

Contra Costa Resource Conservation District iscoordinating the development of a watershed planfor Alhambra Creek involving landowners, agencies,and interested citizens.

S6. Pacheco Marsh, Martinez, Contra Costa County.The Muir Heritage Land Trust, the Coastal Conser-vancy, Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector ControlDistrict, and the Joint Venture are pursuing theacquisition of this 140-acre parcel for tidal and sea-sonal wetland restoration.

S12. Julia Cox Freeman Wetland Preserve,Antioch, Contra Costa County. Mt. Diablo Audubonand Contra Costa County are working cooperativelyto restore 7.5 acres of tidal marsh.

Central Bay Subregion (CB)

CB4. Codornices Creek, Albany, Alameda County.The Cities of Albany and Berkeley are working withFriends of Five Creeks and the Waterways Restora-tion Institute to restore five acres of riparian habitatalong segments of Codornices Creek, including atUniversity Village.

CB12. Eastshore State Park, Alameda County.East Bay Regional Park District has purchased 1,700acres along the Emeryville, Berkeley, and Albanywaterfronts for the Eastshore State Park. Approxi-

Corte Madera Ecological Reserve immediately after restoration (Spring 1991)BARBARA SALZMAN


mately 100 acres of tidal marsh will be restored in the Park; seasonal wetlands may also be con-structed.

CB15. Lake Merritt, Oakland, Alameda County.The City of Oakland, the Lake Merritt Institute, andthe Coastal Conservancy are exploring the meansand options for restoring wetlands at three locationsin Lake Merritt, the first wildlife refuge in the U.S.

CB21. Oyster Bay, San Leandro, Alameda County.East Bay Regional Park District is currently remedi-ating and will eventually restore 90 acres of tidalmarsh.

CB22. Yosemite Creek–Candlestick Point, SanFrancisco County. The Department of Parks andRecreation is partnering with Audubon in plans torestore 34 acres of tidal marsh at the mouth of thiscreek.

South Bay Subregion (SB)

SB4. Oliver Property, Alameda County. (HighActivity) The Hayward Area Recreation and ParkDistrict (HARD) has applied for permitting from theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers for enhancing 324acres of former salt pond along Hayward Shoreline.The project, which includes mudflats and wetlands,will enhance tidal circulation and water control inboth HARD Marsh and the East Bay Regional ParkDistrict’s salt marsh harvest mouse preserve.

SB9. Mayhews Landing, Newark, Alameda County.Planning is underway to restore 108 acres of tidaland seasonal wetland habitat.

SB12. Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NationalWildlife Refuge, Alameda County. The U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service has numerous restoration andenhancement projects located within the refugeboundaries, (e.g., see projects SB9 and SB13).

SB13. Knapp Tract, Alviso, Santa Clara County. Tidalmarsh restoration is planned for this 450-acre sitethat is already part of the San Francisco Bay Refuge.

SB20. Cargill Salt Enhancement, Santa ClaraCounty. The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture andCargill are exploring opportunities to enhanceshorebird and waterfowl habitat provided by

Cargill’s salt ponds, as well as partnerships for thepurchase of 19,000 acres of salt ponds.

SB22. San Francisquito Creek Coordinated ResourceManagement Plan, San Mateo County. The Planpulled together many stakeholders and was complet-ed last year. It recommends numerous actions includ-ing flood and erosion control, public education, moni-toring, evaluation, and pollution prevention.

SB23. Ravenswood Preserve, East Palo Alto, SanMateo County. The Mid-Peninsula Regional OpenSpace District is overseeing the tidal marsh restora-tion of this 200-acre salt pond.

San Mateo Coast Subregion

C1. San Pedro Creek Flood Control Project,Pacifica, San Mateo County. The City of Pacifica isdesigning an innovative flood control project thatincorporates tidal marsh restoration on approxi-mately 15 acres. In order to restore steelhead habi-tat and riparian values, funding is needed to removefish barriers and stabilize the channel within theCounty Park and at two bridge crossings.

C3. Pilarcitos Creek Watershed Plan Implementa-tion, San Mateo County. The Pilarcitos Creek Water-shed Plan is in the implementation phase, with sever-al fish passage projects pending or under construc-tion by the San Mateo Resource Conservation District.

C4. San Gregorio Creek Riparian Restoration, SanMateo County. The San Mateo Resource Conser-vation District is developing a riparian restorationproject that will also protect agricultural land fromfurther erosion.

C5. Pescadero Marsh, Pescadero, San MateoCounty. The California Department of Parks andRecreation has been gradually restoring the 345-acrePescadero Marsh. The project includes the restora-tion of tidal wetlands at the mouth of PescaderoCreek and the restoration of both Pescadero andButano Creek watersheds.

C6. Pescadero/Butano Watershed Plan, San MateoCounty. The San Mateo Resource ConservationDistrict is guiding the development of a watershedplan for Pescadero and Butano creeks, which draininto Pescadero Marsh.

Funding San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Habitat GoalsFunding San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Habitat Goals

Regional and Subregional Costs ofGoals Implementation

Ahigh level of funding for wetland and riparianprojects will be essential to the success of the

San Francisco Bay Joint Venture. Securing publicand private funding to implement the SFBJV man-agement strategies remains the shared responsibili-ty of Joint Venture’s partners, including Federal andState governments and private conservation organi-zations. Additional funding should be obtainedthrough corporations and individuals who appreci-ate or benefit from the region’s wetlands and canembrace the importance of revitalizing them,together with their wildlife populations.

Means of Funding the Goals. Many steady and largefunding sources must be harnessed for accomplish-ing the Joint Venture’s habitat goals. The NorthAmerican Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) willcontinue to be a major source of funding for SFBJVprojects, as it is for other joint ventures. Otherpotential sources of federal funding include the Landand Water Conservation Fund, the Estuary HabitatRestoration Partnership Act, the Conservation andReinvestment Act, and National Fish and WildlifeFoundation grants. In addition to past sources ofstate funding such as Wildlife Conservation Boardand Coastal Conservancy grants, statewide park and

water bonds can provide substantial sources of fund-ing. Entirely new fee or tax-based resources that canbe linked with Clean Water Act implementation arealso needed. These include vehicle license fees dedi-cated to water quality/wetland projects as proposedin new legislation, “Transportation Fund for CleanWater.” Another option is to develop an “estuary wet-lands restoration program” using the EPA StateRevolving Funds (SRF) in coordination with the BayArea Stormwater Management Association as ameans to finance habitat projects. (Repayment ofSRF loans could be secured through stormwater, orother utility fees, and/or park or water bonds.)

7

Clapper rail US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

SAVE THE BAY

SFBJV conservation partners such as theNational Audubon Society, Bay Institute, Save theBay, Ducks Unlimited, Sierra Club, Point Reyes BirdObservatory, and Urban Creeks Council should pro-mote increased funding for projects that address thegoals and objectives of the SFBJV. They are encour-aged to use this Implementation Strategy to justify asuite of systematic implementation funding pro-grams to support the fulfillment of the San FranciscoBay Joint Venture Habitat Goals.

Cost Summary of SFBJV Goals. A cumulative costsummary is described below. Table 7-1 shows the

summary goals for the Bay Area divided into specif-ic cost objectives for each of the five subregions ofthe SFBJV. However, it should not be seen as a rigideconomic analysis but basic preliminary cost esti-mates provided to assist Joint Venture partners ingrasping the financial commitment needed to reachthe goals. No attempt was made to adjust for infla-tion costs over the 20-year goals’ horizon. However,just as some costs will increase due to inflation andother unforeseen factors, other costs can also bereduced through economies of scale for largerestoration projects.

The total cost of accomplishing the habitat


Table 7-1San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Wetland Habitat Costs by Subregion

Subregions Bay Habitats Seasonal Wetlands Creeks and Lakes Total by Subregion(millions) (millions) (millions) (millions)

20 yrs Annually 20 yrs Annually 20 yrs Annually 20 yrs Annually

Suisun SubregionAcquire 15 0.75 55 2.75 — — 70 3.5Restore 10 0.5 9 0.45 40 2.0 59.0 2.95Enhance 2 0.1 6 0.3 80 4.0 88 4.4

North Bay SubregionAcquire 115 5.75 90 4.5 — — 205 10.25Restore 75 3.75 36 1.8 20 1.0 131.0 6.55Enhance 13 0.65 12 0.6 40 2.0 65 3.25

Central Bay SubregionAcquire 45 2.25 5 0.25 — — 50 2.5Restore 20 1.0 0 0 52.5 2.635 72.5 3.625Enhance 4 0.2 1 0.05 157.5 7.875 162.5 8.125

South Bay SubregionAcquire 1401 7.0 35 1.75 — — 175 8.75Restore 80 4.0 9 0.45 92 4.6 181.0 9.05Enhance 421 2.1 4 0.2 253 12.65 299 14.95


Acquire TBD — TBD — — — TBD —Restore TBD — TBD — 60 3.0 60 3.0Enhance TBD — TBD — 50 2.5 50 2.5

Total Costs by Type561.0 28.05 262 13.1 845 42.25 1,668 83.40

Monitoring = Extra 3 percent577.83 28.89 269.86 13.49 870.35 43.52 1,718.04 85.9


Notes: 1. 25,000 acres of salt ponds are included in both acquisition and enhancement; as with other acquisitions,this assumes a willing seller. 2. The San Francisco/San Mateo wetland acreages appear as TBD or “To Be Determined,”since they have not been estimated. This subregion was not part of the Goals Project.

goals contained in the Implementation Strategy isroughly $1,668,000,000 or $83,400,000 per year for 20years. The total cost estimate rises to $3.8 billion ifa less conservative wetlands restoration cost aver-age of $20,000 per acre is used.

Assumptions and Average Unit Costs

Estimating and compiling the cost of an Implemen-tation Plan intended to last at least 20 years is not asimple calculation, and it is important to note themany assumptions that were made while estimatingthe costs of the SFBJV Implementation Strategy. Theaverage rates for unit costs of acquisition, restora-tion, and enhancement projects for each of the threehabitat categories within each subregion are dis-

played in Table 7-2. These computations reflect aconservative estimate for construction costs, andwere reviewed by resource managers and scientistswith extensive experience in restoration andenhancement.

Chapter 7—Funding San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Habitat Goals 77

Table 7-2Average Cost Rates for the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Implementation Strategy

Bay Habitats Seasonal Wetlands Creeks and Lakes

Suisun SubregionAcquire $5,000 per acre $5,000 per acre ND2

Restore $5,000 per acre $900,000 per 100 acres $40,000 per acreEnhance $1,000 per acre $1,000 per acre $20,000 per acre

North Bay SubregionAcquire $5,000 per acre $5,000 per acre ND2


Central Bay SubregionAcquire $5,000 per acre $5,000 per acre ND2


South Bay SubregionAcquire $5,000 per acre $5,000 per acre ND2



Acquire TBD TBD ND2

Restore TBD TBD $20,000 per acreEnhance TBD TBD $10,000 per acre


Notes: 1. The San Francisco/San Mateo wetland acreages appear as TBD or “To Be Determined,” since they have notbeen estimated. This subregion was not part of the Goals Project. 2. ND = Not Determined. Costs for riparian acqui-sition are too variable; it was also assumed for the sake of practicality that protection strategies focus on conserva-tion easements for riparian buffers, which can be procured without cost in some instances.

Salt marsh harvest mouse TOM TUTT

Acquisition. Land acquisition costs vary greatly inthe Bay Area, with an average range of $1,000 to$15,000 per acre in 1999. For the purposes of thisdocument, an average rate of $5,000 per acre wasused for the acquisition of both bay habitats andseasonal wetlands. This estimate is merely a calcu-lation tool, recognizing that actual land costs willvary from project to project and from year to year.This rate remains constant regardless of a parcel’slocation within the Bay, its current level of develop-ment, and fluctuations of land value from one reachof the Bay to another. This estimate does notaccount for conservation easements, where only thedevelopment rights of a property are purchased,usually creating a far less expensive alternative tooutright acquisition. Acquisition costs for creek andlake habitats were not calculated, given the practi-cal consideration that creek corridors rarely corre-spond to parcels, but generally bisect or border larg-er parcels.

Restoration. Restoration costs can vary widely, andare largely determined by the target wetland type tobe restored. The simplest restorations can cost aslittle as $2,750 an acre, while more complex restora-tions can cost tens of thousands of dollars per acre.

For the purposes of this document, we chose to usea conservative average of $5,000 per acre for region-wide tidal wetlands restoration costs. This rateincorporates a conservative level of permitting,planning, and engineering costs. However, this esti-mate does not account for variations caused by sed-iment removal and regrading. If these factors areconsidered, a more typical average would be $20,000per acre.

The estimated cost for seasonal wetlandrestoration is $900,000 per 100 acres. It is importantto note that this figure represents large-scalerestoration. A simple reduction to cost per acrewould not account for the effects of economies ofscale. This figure includes such services as excava-tion, revegetation, permitting, planning, and engi-neering.

The estimated cost of creek and lake habitatrestoration is fairly complex, and ranges from$20,000 per acre to $52,500 per acre. The primaryconsideration was the habitat’s location within theJoint Venture’s geographic scope. A project’s loca-tion describes an approximate level of development,which in turn, specifies the possible project width.Two riparian corridor widths were used: 1) 40meters for all riparian zones in rural and suburbanareas (see page 24 in Chapter 3 for discussion ofhow this average was determined); and 2) 50 feet for


With knowledgeable guidance, volunteers can reduce costsand increase “community ownership” of creek projects. JOHN STEERE

Workers remove Arundo donax. This giant cane is particu-larly invasive and can overtake riparian zones.SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER

Chapter 7—Funding San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Habitat Goals 79

urban riparian corridors. The wider corridor wasassumed for all of the North Bay and Suisun subre-gions and for one-half of the South Bay and SanFrancisco/San Mateo subregions. The 50-foot corri-dor was used for the other half of the South Bay andSan Francisco/San Mateo subregions and all of thehighly urbanized Central Bay subregion.

Enhancement. The cost for enhancement of Bayhabitat and seasonal wetlands is estimated to be$1,000 per acre. This rate remains constant regard-less of location within the Estuary, and includessuch individual costs as revegetation, exoticsremoval, limited irrigation, and moderate manage-ment.

The process of calculating enhancement costsfor creek habitat is comparable to that for restorationestimates in its complexity. The same considerationsof location, levels of development, and riparian corri-dor are accounted for in the estimated averages forenhancement. Creek enhancement is assumed toinclude such services as native revegetation andexotics removal, maintenance of existing channelmeanders, bank stabilization, and erosion control.Factors that can add to the general cost of a project,such as earth moving, extensive irrigation, and long-term management are not included.

Monitoring. While long-term monitoring is an essen-tial component of anyrestoration or enhancementproject, it was not factoredinto the projections shown inTable 7-1. Monitoring variesindividually from project toproject, making it difficult toestimate the total cost for aneffort like the San FranciscoBay Joint Venture. Onemethod of approximatinglong-term monitoring costsuses a cost per acre per anumber of years (e.g., $550per acre for five years).Another common method isto create a long-term “moni-toring endowment” from anequivalent of three percent ofthe construction costs. If thethree percent rule wereapplied to the estimates inTable 7-1, the total cost forthe Implementation Strategy

would rise by $50 million to approximately$1,718,000,000.

Roles of Partners inImplementation

If the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture is to be suc-cessful in meeting its habitat goals, the roles andresponsibilities must be shared by its partners. Withthis intent member agencies and organizations ofthe Joint Venture have committed to participateactively in fulfilling the acreage goals set forth in theImplementation Strategy.

Each partner’s projected roles toward realizingthe habitat acreage goals are shown in Table 7-3. Thelist of organizations does not recognize the many indi-viduals and organizations that contributed to thedevelopment of this plan, nor the many entities whowill help to implement specific projects, as it is limit-ed to the members of the Joint Venture ManagementBoard. See the first section of Chapter 4 for a listing ofspecific organizations and agencies that will beinvolved in public and private lands programs by sub-region, i.e., for purchase of fee title (public lands)and/or conservation easements (private lands).

Monitoring birds at Remillard Pond LIZA RIDDLE


Table 7-3Agency and Organization Involvement in SFBJV Goals Implementation San Francisco Bay Funding Project Implementation1 Outreach Education3 MonitoringJoint Venture Acquisition2 Restoration/ Acquisition2 Restoration/ and/or and Partner Enhancement Enhancement Advocacy3 Evaluation4

Federal (F) and State/Regional (S/R) Agencies

Bay Conservation and X XDevelopment Commission

California Coastal Conservancy (S)

X X X X X

California Department of Fish and Game (S)

X X X X X X

Coastal Region, Mosquito and Vector X X X XControl District (R)

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (F)

X X

National Marine Fisheries Service (F)

X X X

Natural Resource Conservation Service (F)

X X X X

Regional Water Quality Control Boards, SF Bay (S)

X X

Resource ConservationDistricts (R)

X X X X

SF Estuary Project (R) X X XU.S. Army Corps (F) X X X XU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (F)

X X X X X

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (F)

X X X X X X

Wildlife Conservation Board (S)

X X X

Nongovernmental Organizations (includes affiliates of organizations)

Bay Area Open Space Council XBay Planning Coalition X X X X X XCitizens Committee to Complete the Refuge

X X

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. X X X X X XNational Audubon Society/Bay Area X X X X X X XAudubon Council

Point Reyes Bird Observatory X X X X XSave the Bay X X XSierra Club X XThe Bay Institute X X X X XThe Conservation Fund X XUrban Creeks Council X X XPrivate Industry X X X X X X


Notes: 1. Refers to staff time and other in-kind technical support for implementation. 2. Includes both public lands and private landsprograms—for acquiring fee title and for conservation easements. 3. Both governmental and nonprofit organizations may conductoutreach, which includes education, communication of goals, enlistment of additional partners, and the solicitation of fundingsources. Governmental entities that do “outreach” are listed in the “education column of the table. 4. Activities designed to tracksuccess of restoration/enhancement projects (see Chapter 5).

References

Accurso, L.M. 1992. Distribution and abundance of winter-ing waterfowl on San Francisco Bay 1988–1990. M.S.Thesis, Humboldt State University.

Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team. 1997. OpenSpace, Wetlands, and Maritime Facilities on the BayArea’s Closing Bases. 1 pg.

Bellrose, F. 1980. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of NorthAmerica. 3rd edition. Stackpole books, Harrisburg,Pennsylvania. 543 pp.

Brady/LSA. 1999. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Draft MasterPlan. pp. 67–116 and appendices.

Brown, S. 1998. National Shorebird Conservation Plan:Progress Report. Manomet Center for ConservationSciences, Manomet, Massachusetts. 9 pp.

Brown, S. 1999. United States Shorebird Conservation PlanFact Sheet. Manomet Center for ConservationSciences, Manomet, Massachusetts. 12 pp.

Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture ImplementationBoard. 1990. Central Valley Habitat Joint VentureImplementation Plan: A Component of the NorthAmerican Waterfowl Management Plan. CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game, California WaterfowlAssociation, Ducks Unlimited, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Sacramento, California, 104 pp.

Gersib, R.A., K.F. Dinan, J.D. Kauffeld, M.D. Onnen, P.J.Gabig, J.E. Cornely, G.E. Jasmer, J.M. Hyland, andK.J. Strom. 1992. Rainwater Basin Joint VentureImplementation Plan. Nebraska Game and ParksCommission, Lincoln, Nebraska. 56 pp.

Goals Project. 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals: AReport Of Habitat Recommendations Prepared by theSan Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystems GoalsProject. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SanFrancisco, California, S.F. Regional Water QualityControl Board, Oakland, California. 209 pp. andappendices.

Harvey, T.E., K.J. Miller, R.L. Hothem, M.J. Rauzon, G.W.Page, and R.A. Keck. 1992. Status and Trends Reporton Wildlife of the San Francisco Estuary. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, Sacramento, California. 283 pp. and appen-dices.

Houghten, C., K. Miller, and K. Foerster. 1989. Concept Planfor Waterfowl Habitat Protection, San Francisco Bay,California. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish andWildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 54 pp.and appendices.

Intermountain West Joint Venture Management Board.1995. Intermountain West Joint Venture Implemen-tation Plan. Salt Lake City, Utah. 24 pp. and appen-dices.

Jorde, D.G., G. M. Haramis, C. M. Bunck, and G. W. Pendle-ton. 1995. Effects of diet on rate of body mass gain bywintering canvasbacks. Journal of Wildlife Manage-ment 59:31–39.

Levy, K., T.F. Young, R.M. Fujita, and W. Alevizon. 1996.Restoration of the San Francisco Bay–Delta–RiverSystem: Choosing Indicators of Ecological Integrity.Environmental Defense Fund, Bay Institute of SanFrancisco, and The Center for SustainableResource Development, Berkeley, California. 66 pp. and appendices.

Little, Tim (ed.). 1994. Environmental Principles for MilitaryBase Closures. ARC/Arms Control Research Center,San Francisco, California. 11 pp.

Loesch, C.R., K.J. Reinecke, and C.K. Baxter. 1994. LowerMississippi Valley Joint Venture Evaluation Plan.North American Waterfowl Management Plan,Vicksburg, Mississippi. 34 pp.

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture ManagementBoard. 1990. Conserving Waterfowl and Wetlands:The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture. NorthAmerican Waterfowl Management Plan, Vicksburg,Mississippi. 32 pp.

Miller, M.R., M.R. McLandress, and F.A. Reid. 1996. CentralValley Habitat Joint Venture Evaluation Plan. NorthAmerican Waterfowl Management Plan, Sacra-mento, California. 65 pp.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee.1994. North American Waterfowl Management PlanImplementation Plan Guidelines 88-05. Washington,D.C. 34 pp.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee.1994. North American Waterfowl Management PlanUpdate: Expanding the Commitment. U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, SEDESOL Mexico, CanadianWildlife Service. 30 pp. and appendices.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee.1998. North American Waterfowl Management Plan:1998 United States Progress Report. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 28 pp.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee.1999. North American Waterfowl Management PlanUpdate 1998: Expanding the Vision. U.S. Departmentof the Interior, SEMARNAP Mexico, CanadianWildlife Service. 32 pp.

Ohlendorf, H.M., R.W. Lowe, P.R. Kelly, and T.E. Harvey,1986. Selenium and heavy metals in San FranciscoBay diving ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management50: 64–71.

Pacific Coast Joint Venture Management Board. 1995.Pacific Coast Joint Venture Strategic Plan. Vancouver,Washington. 191 pp.

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan UpdateCommittee. 1995. U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint VentureImplementation Plan. U.S. Department of theInterior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver,Colorado. 26 pp. and appendices.

San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water RecyclingProgram. 1999. In: Regional Master Plan Update,Lafayette, California. 10 pp.

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1992. ComprehensiveConservation and Management Plan for the SanFrancisco Bay–Sacramento/San Joaquin River DeltaEstuary.

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1993. Managing FreshwaterDischarge to the San Francisco Bay–Sacramento/SanJoaquin River Delta Estuary: The Scientific Basis foran Estuarine Standard. Alonzo Printing Co. 17 pp.and appendices.

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1996. CCMP Workbook:Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Bay-Delta Implementation Progress1993–1996. 68 pp.

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1997. State of the Estuary1992–1997, Vital Statistics, New Science, and Environ-

mental Management. Regional Water Quality ControlBoard, Oakland, California. 64 pp.

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1999. Bay-Delta Environ-mental Report Card: CCMP Workbook. Oakland,California. 28 pp.

Thelander, C. (ed.). 1994. Life on the Edge. BiosystemsBooks, Santa Cruz, California. 549 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serviceand Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North AmericanWaterfowl Management Plan, A Strategy for Coopera-tion. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.19 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.1990. Concept Plan for Waterfowl and WetlandHabitat Protection for Upper Mississippi River andGreat Lakes Region Joint Venture. U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities,Minnesota. 49 pp.

Vicencio, L. 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish andWildlife Service unpublished data.

Yocom, C.F., and M. Keller. 1961. Correlation of food habitsand abundance of waterfowl in eastern Washington.Journal of Wildlife Management 24: 237–250

Young, T.F., and M. Fujita. 1999. Developing EssentialEcological Indicators for the San Francisco Bay/Delta/River System. In: 4th Biennial State of theEstuary Conference: The Rehabilitation of the Estu-ary and Its Watersheds—Abstract Book. Page 37.

Personal Communications:

Josh Bradt, Urban Creeks Council, Berkeley.

Jeff Haltiner, Phillip Williams and Associates, Ltd., CorteMadera.

Gary Mason and Jorgen Blomberg, Wolfe MasonAssociates, Oakland.

A.L Riley, Waterways Restoration Institute, Berkeley.

Louise Vicencio, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MareIsland

Carl Wilcox, California Department of Fish and Game,Yountville


Appendix A—San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Working Agreement

September 1996

The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture is a partner-ship of public agencies, environmental organiza-

tions, hunting and fishing groups, the business com-munity, local government, and landowners workingcooperatively to protect, restore, increase, andenhance wetlands and riparian habitat in the SanFrancisco Bay Watershed. Using a non-regulatoryapproach and an ecosystem perspective, the JointVenture will work through its partners to completeon-the-ground habitat projects benefiting waterfowland fish and wildlife populations by leveragingresources, developing new funding sources and cre-ating partnerships.

The partners of the Joint Venture recognize thevital role wetland and riparian habitats play in main-taining a healthy ecosystem because of their func-tions in buffering the impact of floodwaters, cleans-ing pollutants from runoff, recharging overdrawnwater supplies, and providing critical habitat forwaterfowl and hundreds of fish and wildlife species.Fifty percent of threatened and endangered speciesin the Bay Area depend on wetland and riparianhabitat, and up to 90 percent of commercial andrecreational fish species use these areas for spawn-ing grounds in San Francisco Bay. Wetlands andriparian habitat also provide economic benefits,recreational opportunities, and generally contributeto a higher quality of life for residents in the dense-ly populated San Francisco Bay Area.

Goal

The goal of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture is toprotect, restore, increase, and enhance all types ofwetlands, riparian habitat, and associated uplandsthroughout the San Francisco Bay region to benefitwaterfowl and other fish and wildlife populations.

Background

Waterfowl numbers in North America have experi-enced long-term declines due to the loss or degrada-tion of critical wetland and associated upland habitat.Reversal of this loss is essential to the future of water-fowl, shorebirds, and all other wetland-associatedwildlife. The North American Waterfowl ManagementPlan (NAWMP) is an international agreement betweenthe U.S., Canada, and Mexico to address these losses.The NAWMP is a federal, state, and private coopera-tive initiative designed to protect wetland habitat andincrease wetland wildlife populations while improvingwater quality, reducing soil loss and addressing manyother wetland ecosystem issues. Implementation ofthe NAWMP occurs through the formation of multi-level partnerships (known as joint ventures) betweendiverse public and private organizations who sharecommon interest in the conservation, maintenance,and management of key wetland ecosystems.

The NAWMP identifies 34 “waterfowl habitatareas of major concern” and targets these areas forthe establishment of joint ventures. The SanFrancisco Bay region is recognized as one of theareas of major concern.

The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture alsoimplements state and federal wetlands protectionpolicies including the California Wetlands Conser-vation Policy and federal Executive Order 11990.

San Francisco Bay Joint VentureObjectives

1. Secure wetlands, riparian habitat, and associ-ated uplands through fee or permanent ease-ment acquisition.

2. Restore and enhance wetlands, riparian habi-tat, and associated uplands on both public andprivate lands using non-regulatory techniques.

3. Improve habitat management on publicly andprivately owned wetlands, riparian habitat,and associated uplands through the use ofcooperative management agreements and vol-untary incentive programs.

4. Develop an Implementation Strategy usingexisting data on wetlands, riparian habitat, andassociated uplands to guide Joint Venture pro-tection and restoration efforts from an ecosys-tem perspective including public health andsafety considerations.

5. Strengthen existing and promote new fundingsources for wetlands acquisition, restoration,enhancement, and management programs.

6. Support monitoring and evaluation of existingrestoration projects, as well as pertinentresearch studies, to improve the results offuture restoration projects.

San Francisco Bay Joint VentureStructure

The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture is composed ofa Management Board, an Advisory Board, anImplementation Strategy Committee, and severalother Working Committees established to accom-plish specific Joint Venture objectives. These unitsshall include diverse representation from state andfederal agencies, environmental organizations, hunt-ing and fishing groups, the business community,landowners, public utilities, and local government.Members of each of these units are expected toassist with external communications at national,state, and local levels, help secure funding for proj-ects supported by the Joint Venture, and bring newinitiatives to the Joint Venture.

Joint Venture Management Board

The Management Board will consist of approximate-ly fifteen members who agree to support and pro-mote the goal and objectives of the Joint Ventureand who represent the diversity of wetlands inter-ests found in the San Francisco Bay Region.Members of the Management Board will be landown-ers or land managers, or have the ability to provide

expertise in wetland science and/or policy, or havethe ability to contribute or help secure funding forprojects supported by the Joint Venture.

The Management Board will:

1. Set direction and policy for Joint Venture activ-ities.

2. Solicit, select, and prioritize projects that maybe undertaken by the Joint Venture partners.

3. Set direction for external communications atnational, state, and local levels.

4. Secure funding for projects supported by theJoint Venture.

5. Set direction for legislative matters that affectfunding for the NAWMP or projects supportedby the Joint Venture.

6. Oversee development and completion of theImplementation Strategy.

7. Provide direction for the Joint Venture Coor-dinator who reports to the Chair.

8. Assign tasks to the Working Committees.

9. Review forthcoming wetland and riparian hab-itat initiatives and determine appropriateaction.

10. Track accomplishment of objectives, reviewand approve suggested changes to Implemen-tation Strategy.

11. Oversee management of Joint Venture funds,as appropriate if established pursuant to a sep-arate agreement.

12. Appoint Advisory Board members.

A chair and vice chair will be appointed by the Man-agement Board and will rotate on an annual basis. TheManagement Board will meet every other month.

Advisory Board

The Advisory Board will consist of up to 30 mem-bers with an interest in wetlands protection andrestoration in the San Francisco Bay region. TheAdvisory Board members will be appointed by theManagement Board.

The role of the Advisory Board will include advisingand assisting the Management Board in the follow-ing areas:


1. Direction and policy for Joint Venture activities.

2. Task assignments for Working Committees asappropriate.

3. New initiatives with potential impacts on proj-ects supported by the Joint Venture.

4. External communications at the national,state, and local levels.

5. Helping to secure funding for projects sup-ported by the Joint Venture.

6. Legislative matters that affect funding for theNAWMP or the Joint Venture.

The Advisory Board will meet at least twice a year.

Working Committees

Working Committees are established to accomplishspecific objectives of the Joint Venture, and can beestablished at any time by the Management Board.Working Committee members do not have to be onthe Management Board. Working Committees reportto the Management Board and make recommenda-tions for the Management Board’s review andapproval. Working Committees meet every othermonth, alternating their meetings with the Manage-ment Board meeting schedule. Initial Working Com-mittees and their responsibilities are as follows:

Implementation Strategy Committee.

This committee will consist of ten people with tech-nical expertise reflecting the diversity of theManagement Board. Once the ImplementationStrategy has been completed, this committee will beconvened on an ad hoc basis. The roles of theImplementation Strategy Committee will include:

1. Draft Implementation Strategy to guide acqui-sition and restoration activities.

2. Recommend to the Management Board thecreation of new Working Committees as needarises.

3. Provide technical information to the Manage-ment Board to set and achieve habitat objec-tives.

4. Perform work assignments as directed by theManagement Board.

5. Coordinate Joint Venture ImplementationStrategy with Regional Wetlands EcosystemGoals Project.

Legislative/Fiscal Committee.

1. Develop and implement a legislative strategyto secure funding and otherwise support proj-ects promoted by the Joint Venture.

2. Track current and developing legislative issuesand advise Management Board on appropriateaction.

Public Affairs Committee.

1. Develop and implement a public outreachstrategy for external communications atnational, state, and local levels.

2. Design a Joint Venture brochure and other pub-lications as directed by the Management Board.

Acquisition and Restoration Committee.

1. Develop a list of potential acquisition, restora-tion, and enhancement projects that will furtherthe goals of the Joint Venture.

2. Identify acquisition and restoration opportuni-ties.

3. Develop project selection criteria.

4. Review potential acquisition and restorationprojects and make recommendations to theManagement Board.

5. Track accomplishment of Joint Venture objec-tives.

Joint Venture Fund Committee.

1. Determine feasibility of establishing a JointVenture Fund that can be used for Joint Venturepartners’ acquisition, restoration, or enhance-ment projects. In order to establish such afund, all parties to this agreement must con-sent through a formal, legally sufficient agree-ment or contract which establishes such fund.

Joint Venture Coordinator

The Joint Venture Coordinator reports to the Chair ofthe Management Board and the responsibilities are:

1. Chair Implementation Strategy Committee.

2. Primary liaison between Management Board,Advisory Board, and Working Committees.

Appendix A—SFBJV Working Agreement 85

3. Carry out work plan and ImplementationStrategy as directed by the Management Board.

4. Coordinate and provide staff direction toWorking Committees.

5. Act as principal spokesperson for Joint Ven-ture activities.

6. Assist in creating and facilitating partnershipsthat accomplish Joint Venture goals.

7. Oversee development and completion of theImplementation Strategy.

8. Maintain contact with media to increase publicawareness about Joint Venture and wetlandsissues.

9. Serve as liaison to other Bay Area wetlandscoordination efforts.

10. Seek new public and private funding sourcesfor Joint Venture partners’ projects.

11. Provide coordination and information to JointVenture partners on wetlands protectionstrategies and methods.

12. Provide partnership or project managementguidance as needed.

13. Assist partners in completion of grant applica-tions.

Intended Use of Implementation Strategy

The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture ImplementationStrategy will be used as a blueprint to implementactions that protect, restore, and enhance wetlands,associated uplands, and riparian habitat. It will beused to assist signatories in setting priorities for wet-land and riparian habitat protection efforts and be afocal point for agencies, organizations, and the publicwho want to contribute to wetland and riparian areaprotection, restoration, and enhancement. The SanFrancisco Bay Joint Venture Implementation Strategywill be used to identify funding needs, fundingsources, and collaborators for accomplishing thegoals, objectives, and actions in the Strategy.

In pursuit of this Agreement:

1. The parties to this Agreement will begin work-ing toward the goals of the Agreement upon the

signing below of at least five parties. Those par-ties will continue to work towards the Agree-ment’s goals unless the number of signatoriesbecomes less than five.

2. The members of the Management Board andother participants shall work together in acooperative and collaborative manner. In casesof disputes over Joint Venture projects, mem-bers shall engage in a good faith effort at resolv-ing disagreements.

3. Amendments to this Agreement may be pro-posed to the Chair of the Management Board atany time by any party and shall become effec-tive upon approval by a quorum of theManagement Board. However, any amendmentto this Agreement which particularly affectsthe interests of a party or parties may not beapproved by the Management Board withoutconsent by the affected party or parties.Further, the disclaimers below may not beamended without the written consent of allparties.

4. Upon agreement from the Management Board,other agencies or organizations may join theSan Francisco Bay Joint Venture ManagementBoard, Advisory Board, and Working Commit-tees. Any party may terminate its participationin this agreement by giving written notice tothe Chair of the Management Board.

5. A quorum will consist of a simple majority ofall parties on the Management Board, and isnecessary to approve any action.

6. All Management Board members have the right to vote. Management Board members arerequired to recuse themselves from voting onissues with potential conflict of interest con-cerns (see Attachment A).

Disclaimers:

1. This document is intended to accomplish thestated goals by bringing public agencies, envi-ronmental organizations, hunting and fishinggroups, local government, the business com-munity, and landowners together to developstrategies to further wetlands protection. Thestrategies generated by these parties maythen lead to the separate creation of futureagreements or contracts to accomplish thesegoals. This document is not intended to be a


binding contract for any reason. The wordsand phrases used in this document such as“partner,” “joint venture” and “agreement” arenot intended to be understood in the legalsense. No legal consideration has been or willbe given by any party becoming involved withthis Agreement.

2. Nothing herein alters the existing authoritiesor responsibilities of any party nor shall beconsidered as obligating any party in theexpenditure of funds or the future payment ofmoney or providing services.

3. No party to this Agreement shall be liable forany injuries or damages to persons or proper-ty resulting from acts or omissions by anyother party or by related parties in carryingout activities pursuant to this Agreement.

4. No party to this Agreement shall be held as a party to any contract entered into by anyother party (or other party’s agents) to thisAgreement in carrying out the activities pur-suant to this Agreement, unless that partyagrees in writing to be a part of any such con-tract.


Daniel Taylor, Executive Director National Audubon Society, California

Barry Nelson, Executive DirectorSave San Francisco Bay Association

Alan Wentz, Regional ManagerDucks Unlimited, Inc.

Michele Perrault, International Vice PresidentSierra Club

John Woodbury, Program Director Bay Area Open Space Council

Mike Rigney, Watershed Program CoordinatorBay Area Regional Watershed Network

Arthur FeinsteinCitizen’s Committee to Complete the Refuge

Barbara SalzmanBay Area Audubon Council

Ellen Johnck, Executive DirectorBay Planning Coalition

Robert D. Testa, Vice President for Government RelationsPacific Gas & Electric Corporation

Douglas Wheeler, SecretaryCalifornia Resources Agency

Michael Fischer, Executive OfficerCalifornia Coastal Conservancy

Loretta Barsamian, Executive OfficerRegional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region

Will Travis, Executive DirectorSan Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

Brian Hunter, Regional Manager, Region 3California Department of Fish and Game

W. John Schmidt, Executive DirectorWildlife Conservation Board

H. Dale Hall, Assistant Regional Director for Californiaand Klamath EcoregionsU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Alexis Strauss, Division Director Water Management Division, Region IXU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Maxine Durney, PresidentCouncil of Bay Area Resource Conservation Districts

Karl Malamud-RoamCoastal Region, Mosquito and Vector ControlDistricts


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have joined into this Agreement by affixing their signatures:

Signatories:

All management board members are required to dis-close any personal or organizational interest in atransaction or project under consideration by theJoint Venture. In addition, all potential conflicts ofinterest must be disclosed so that decisions madeby the Joint Venture are not interpreted to be influ-enced by the appearance or fact of personal materi-al financial benefit to individuals.

Definition. A conflict of interest exists whenever amember of the management board (including aspouse, sibling, parent, or child of a board member)has a personal material financial interest in a trans-action or project under consideration by the man-agement board.

Board Members Obligation. Each board memberhas the obligation to avoid a conflict of interest and

must disclose to the board the existence of any realor potential conflict of interest.

Board Obligations. If the board determines that atransaction or project of the Joint Venture involvesa conflict of interest, whether real or apparent, by amember of the management board, the board shall,at a minimum, require the board member to abstainfrom voting on any such issue.

The board may approve of such project ortransaction only if the board makes specific findingsthat the transaction or project is:

(a) fair and benefits the Joint Venture and itsobjectives; and

(b) approved with full knowledge of the economicbenefit to the board member involved in theconflict of interest.


Attachment A

San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Working Agreement Conflict of Interest

and Disclosure Policy

The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture is a non-regula-tory project whose purpose is the protection,restoration, and enhancement of wetland habitats.The Joint Venture will not participate in permitactions requiring mitigation for wetlands degrada-tion caused by proposed or permitted activitieswhose primary purpose is something other than theenhancement, restoration, or creation of wetlandhabitat.

This policy shall not preclude the JointVenture from exploring opportunities to work withpermit holders to further enhance, restore, or create

wetlands beyond permit-specified levels, providedthat all project-related permits and mitigation havebeen finalized and secured before the JointVenture’s involvement is solicited.

If a formal mechanism is established to allowthe Joint Venture to receive monies, the JointVenture may elect to receive fines, such as adminis-trative civil penalties, levied as part of an effort toredress past violations for unauthorized environ-mental degradation, and to use those fine monies to undertake the enhancement, restoration, or cre-ation of wetlands habitats.


Attachment B

San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Working Agreement Mitigation Policy


Attachment C

San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Structure

Management Board

Advisory Committee

Coordinator

Regional Goals Project

Implementation Strategy Committee

Legislative Acquisition and Public Affairs Joint Venture Fund Committee Restoration Committee Committee Committee

Appendix B—Policy Foundations for Ecosystem Protection and Restoration

The North American WaterfowlManagement Plan: Waterfowl Goals

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan(The Plan) is an international strategy to protect,restore and enhance wetlands in Canada, the U.S.,and Mexico for waterfowl through the use of part-nerships between public and private organizationscalled joint ventures. The NAWMP identified 34major habitats used by waterfowl, one of which isthe San Francisco Bay Area.

Specific waterfowl population goals have beendeveloped for North American waterfowl. The Plan’sprimary goal is to restore and maintain waterfowldiversity and abundance to levels occurring in the1970s. Population declines observed in the 1980sprompted the development of the Plan. The Planidentifies factors in declines in duck populations.These include habitat loss, land use changes, dis-ease, competition with other ducks, predation, andhunting.

The Plan’s first goal is 62 million breeding ducksto support a fall flight of at least 100 million ducks andsix million wintering geese and swans under averageenvironmental conditions. Secondly, the Plan’s objec-tive is to reach or exceed mid-continent breedingduck population goals for the 10 most common duckspecies. Since 1986, eight of 10 of these species haveseen an increase in their populations, and some haveexceeded those goals. Lesser and greater scaup andgadwall are duck species that have not seen anincrease since 1986. The Plan also calls for a blackduck midwinter population index of 385,000. Blackduck population has decreased especially in theMississippi Flyways. Goals for goose populations aimto bring their populations to sustainable levels.Efforts to reduce Snow goose and Ross’ goose popu-lations are being considered.

The Plan was intended to be updated everyfive years to reassess its targets and strategies. The

recently released 1998 Update to the Plan has threevisions for improving the status of North America’swaterfowl and the wetlands that support them.These visions consist of:

1. Enhancing the biological foundation: Thismeans employing sound biology to plan theenhancement of the landscape’s ability to sup-port waterfowl and other wetland species.

2. Using a landscape approach to sustainspecies: Participate in developing conserva-tion, economic, management, and social poli-cies that promote the ecological health oflandscapes that sustain and benefit waterfowland other wetland species.

3. Collaboration with other partnerships: Forgea broader alliance with other conservationefforts, such as shorebird and migratory birdinitiatives.

The San Francisco Bay Concept Plan for

Waterfowl Habitat Protection

The Plan called for the development of a conceptplan for each of 34 Waterfowl Habitat Areas of MajorConcern. The 1989 Concept Plan for WaterfowlHabitat Protection was completed under the guid-ance of the NAWMP.

The Concept Plan gives primary importance tothe restoration and enhancement of waterfowl popu-lations, but also recognizes the significance of non-game species, at least partially in recognition of theloss of wetlands in the region. The Concept Plannotes that, between 1984 and 1989, about 220,000ducks used San Francisco Bay wetlands, almost eightpercent of the total found in California. Most of these

birds use the open water of the Bay or the deepersalt ponds. For example, about 135,000 diving andsea ducks used the Bay, about 67 percent of the totalwaterfowl seen that year. These birds representalmost 40 percent of the State total. Only about42,000 dabbling ducks, waterfowl that use tidal andfreshwater marshes, were seen that year; these rep-resent somewhat less than three percent of the Statetotal, and may indicate the extent of losses to thesehabitats in the region.

The Plan also lists and briefly describes the 16federally listed and 29 candidate species that requirewetland habitats. Since the publication of that report,several other species have been listed, and State andregional work has added even more species to thoseconsidered of special status. The Concept Plan alsonotes the importance of the region to shorebirds,wading birds, fish, and shellfish, and describes wet-lands as important for flood control, shorelineanchoring and dissipation of erosive forces, mainte-nance of water quality, and recreational uses.

Based on these factors, the Concept Plan pro-vides the following objectives: (1) protect an existingarea of 366,000 acres of wetlands and deep water habi-tats; (2) increase the acreage of habitat available forwaterfowl, endangered species, shorebirds, and otherwetland resources, especially seasonal wetlands andtidal salt marshes; and (3) enhance the value anddiversity of existing wetlands, at least partiallythrough improvements to habitat and water quality.

The San Francisco Bay AreaWetlands Ecosystem Goals Project

The San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands EcosystemGoals Project (Goals Project) has spent over three

years developing goals for the numerous wetlandhabitat types found within the baylands or the landswithin the historical and modern boundaries of thetides. Goals Project participants included over 100scientists from local, state, and federal agencies,nonprofit organizations, private consulting firms,and universities. The Project was sponsored by ninestate and federal agencies including the NationalMarine Fisheries Service, San Francisco BayConservation and Development Commission, SanFrancisco Bay Regional Water Quality ControlBoard, Coastal Conservancy, Department of Fishand Game, Department of Water Resources,Resources Agency, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. TheSan Francisco Bay Joint Venture and many of itspartners participated in the Goals Project.

The goals produced by the Goals Project are avision of the types, amounts, and distribution ofwetlands and related habitats needed to sustaindiverse and healthy communities of fish and wildlifein the San Francisco Bay Area. The Joint Venture hasused these goals as the biological foundation for thedevelopment of this Implementation Strategy. TheImplementation Strategy has taken the goals,expanded them to incorporate a larger geographicregion extending beyond the baylands, and devel-oped specific actions that can be taken to meet theexpanded goals of the Joint Venture.

Habitat Goals should be considered an appen-dix to the Joint Venture Implementation Strategybecause it contains detailed information aboutspecies and habitat needs, and makes specific rec-ommendations for restoration of wetlands sitesaround the Bay. It also addresses technical consid-erations for habitat restoration, monitoring, andresearch and implementation issues. The JointVenture will look to Habitat Goals to guide therestoration activities of its partners.


Appendix C—Waterfowl Use of San Francisco Bay Subregions

Wintering waterfowl use of San Francisco Bay isextensive. More than 250,000 birds have been count-ed during the last several midwinter January water-fowl surveys. Generally, early migrants show up inSeptember, peak numbers occur in December orJanuary and use continues through May. In order todocument the importance of the Bay to winteringwaterfowl, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service con-ducted twice-monthly surveys between October andApril of 1988–89 and 1989–90. Six geographically dis-tinct regions were used to delineate the Bay. Fouropen water regions included the North Bay (SanPablo Bay), Central Bay (San Francisco Bay), SouthSan Francisco Bay, and Suisun Bay. Two wetlandregions primarily comprised of salt evaporationponds included the North Bay salt ponds and SouthBay salt ponds.

Although the 1998 midwinter survey indicatedwintering waterfowl were distributed fairly equallyamong the six regions, each holding from 13 percentto 23 percent of the total, the 1999 midwinter surveyshowed a larger proportion of birds using the Central(36%) and North Bay (28%) regions. Suisun Bay wasnot surveyed in 1999 due to poor weather. Certainregions are typically used more extensively by cer-tain species than others. For example, in 1999, theNorth (San Pablo) Bay accounted for over 60 percentof the Bay’s wintering canvasbacks. The North Bayand South Bay salt ponds were also important with20 percent and 12 percent of the canvasbacks,respectively. Scaup were observed primarily in theCentral Bay (55%), North Bay (25%) and South Bay(17%) regions. Buffleheads were primarily concen-trated in the North Bay (38%) and South Bay salt

ponds (30%), as well as in the Central Bay (24%). In1998 and 1999, ruddy ducks accounted for more than90 percent of the use of both salt pond regions.

The more comprehensive winter surveys from1988 to 1990 reveal less seasonal, regional, andannual distribution of waterfowl use in the SanFrancisco Bay. Overall, diving ducks made up themajority of all waterfowl in the four open Bayregions. In both years, the South San Francisco Bayand Central Bay regions had similar use patterns.Less than 2,000 were present in October; their num-bers peaked at 36,000–55,000 in December/January,and their numbers declined slowly through earlyApril, with more than 10,000 still present. In both theNorth and Suisun Bays, diving duck use fluctuatedwidely between years and throughout the season. Inthe North Bay, few birds were present in earlyOctober, but in one year, large concentrations(140,000) were observed by mid-October. Waterfowlpopulations remained high into spring, with up to70,000 birds still present in March. The North Bayreceived high use both years, accounting for 30 per-cent of the Bay’s totals. North Bay salt ponds hadthree to four times more diving ducks than dabblingducks, while the South Bay salt ponds converselyhad two times more dabblers than divers. In bothregions, dabblers began appearing in August, whiledivers arrived later in November. Dabbler use wasconsistent between years in the North Bay saltponds and fairly consistent in the South Bay saltpond region, while diver numbers were less consis-tent. The majority of both diving and dabbling duckswere observed in salt ponds with salinity levelsequal to or less than 64 parts per thousand.

Appendix D—Description of Habitat Types

Habitats within the Baylands

Open Water

Open water areas include all areas that are belowthe line of mean lower low water (MLLW) and thusnot exposed during daily tides: deep bay, shallowbay, deep major channel, and shallow major channelhabitats. These habitats are tremendously valuablefor wintering waterfowl, especially diving and seaducks, and provide migratory corridors throughwhich anadromous fish, such as salmon, reachfreshwater spawning grounds.

During the last century, the open waters of theBay have not been reduced to as great an extent asother habitats, but they have been greatly modified.Hydraulic gold mining sent millions of cubic yards ofsilt washing down from the mountains of the Sierras.Much of this sediment load settled out in the Bay,greatly reducing water depths. For example, 45,000acres in the North Bay were once more than 60 per-cent deep waters; they are now almost 70 percentshallow waters.

The effect of this modification on waterfowland other wildlife is not clear, but the capability ofthe watershed to deliver significant amounts of pol-lutants to the Bay estuary is obvious. Restoration ofopen water in the Bay will be difficult because itwould require excavation of wetlands and uplands.Open waters could be enhanced, however, by theplanting of eelgrass or by other strategies.

Mudflats

Mudflats include those lands above MLLW butbelow the mean tide level (MTL), where marsh veg-etation begins to grow. These habitats are oftendescribed as tidal flats, due to the great variety of

types of flats; sand and shell flats are not uncommonin the Bay, and the substrate character can be veryimportant for different wildlife. Tidal flats areextremely important for wintering waterfowl andshorebirds.

Tidal flats have been greatly reduced in extentsince the early part of the last century. The reduc-tion is primarily due to the sediment loads deposit-ed by hydraulic mining, which also shifted the flatsinward toward the center of the Bay. Essentially, theupper edges of the old flats became marsh while theouter edges of the open water became flats. As withthe changes in open water depth, the impacts ofthese shifts on wildlife use are difficult to assess,and restoration would require significant excavationof uplands and wetlands. Enhancement could be ofvalue, though. For example, flats are being colonizedby an exotic cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) thatincreases sedimentation among these plants and agradual conversion of the flat to marsh; removal ofthis invasive species could reduce or reverse mud-flat losses.

Tidal Marshes

Tidal marshes are found along the Bay edge betweenMTL and just above mean higher high water(MHHW). They consist primarily of areas complete-ly open to tidal influence but also include areas ofmuted tidal marsh, that is, areas where culverts orother obstructions reduce the range of tides but stillallow frequent inundation and exposure. They maybe dominated by cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) andpickleweed (Salicornia virginica) in saline areas, andseveral species of bulrush (Scirpus spp) in fresherzones. The values of tidal marshes are numerous.The Concept Plan for Waterfowl Habitat Protection(hereafter, “Concept Plan”) states that these areasprovide “significant habitat for both migratory birds

and resident wildlife.” Aside from providing impor-tant waterfowl and shorebird habitat, these areassupport the entire Estuary through production oforganic nutrients, which form the basis for the openwater and mudflat food chains. They also reduceshoreline erosion by damping wave action, and actas nursery and refuge areas for many fish species.

The extent of tidal marshes in the Bay regionhas declined by almost 80 percent. As with mudflats,marshes were shifted bayward by sediment loadingin the late 1800s. Marshes are also threatened bypollutants carried by runoff (wetlands tend to bedeposition areas at the ends of stormwater pipes),and by the spread of exotic species. The Bay regionhas a relatively lengthy history of tidal marshrestoration; a number of restoration projects haveconverted filled or diked lands to tidal marsh sincethe mid-1970s, and a variety of newer projects areunderway or planned.

Diked Marshes

Diked marshes are areas within the Baylands nowcut off from tidal action but dominated almostentirely by marsh. These areas consist primarily ofmanaged marsh (often managed by duck clubs inthe North Bay), and diked marsh, typically formertidal marsh that was diked and possibly convertedto other uses, but now reverting to marsh. Theseareas are often very valuable for waterfowl, espe-cially dabbling ducks and shorebirds, and may be used by listed species, such as the salt marshharvest mouse, as a substitute for more naturalhabitats.

Diked marshes are an artifact of the diking ofthe Baylands. Their current habitat values are gen-erally due to the effect of shallow ponded water onthe marsh plain. Where water levels are not man-aged, however, highly variable conditions andwildlife values may occur. Much of the tidal marshrestoration that has occurred in the region hastaken place in diked marshes, although there is sig-nificantly more debate now than in the past on thewisdom of this conversion.

Agricultural Baylands

Agricultural baylands are those former tidal wet-lands that were converted to, and have remained in,some form of farming activity. These include grazedbaylands, farmed baylands, and “ruderal” (weed-

dominated) baylands. The extent of wetlands inthese areas is open to question. Typically, the areaof any particular field defined as wetlands for regu-latory purposes ranges from five to 30 percent.However, these lands may pond over larger areasduring wet periods and, coupled with the extent oflow-lying flat ground, be good habitat for waterfowland shorebirds. These areas, as implied by thename, can also provide important farm and otherbenefits (employment, silage for dairy herds, andopen space, for example).

Agricultural baylands are also an artifact of thediking of Bay wetlands. As open space, they are oftensubject to competing pressures from other uses,from development to tidal wetland restoration. Thefuture uses of these lands, especially those in theNorth Bay subregion, are subject to a great deal ofscrutiny from a number of agencies, environmentalorganizations, and agricultural interests. Assumingthat 25 percent of these lands is wetland, the remain-ing 75 percent, 22,250 acres in the entire region, ispotentially restorable to some form of wetland.

Salt Ponds

Salt ponds are baylands that have been diked andconverted to salt production uses. These ponds aretremendously important for shorebirds and for sev-eral species of waterfowl, especially canvasbackand scaup. The highly saline conditions of theponds can produce significant populations of inver-tebrates that become prey for flocks of shorebirdsand waterfowl. Birds are also attracted by the vari-ety of depths and the lack of vegetation that else-where provides cover for predators.

These areas are almost all former tidal wet-lands, mudflats, or open water. Salt ponds are exten-sive in the South Bay and their varying colors areamong the most noticeable artifacts of the Bay edge.Salt production has been an economically viableconcern, and only a few of these ponds have beenrestored to tidal wetlands.

Ponds and Lagoons

Ponds and lagoons are areas of confined open water,sometimes influenced by tides. These include natu-ral ponds; ponds built for habitat purposes, such asPacheco Pond in Marin County; artificial lagoons,such as those found in Bel Marin Keys or Foster City;and constructed storage or treatment basins. The


values of these areas are highly variable. Someponds are used by large numbers of waterfowl,especially diving and sea ducks, while others are sel-dom used. The Concept Plan notes that these areasprovide important “habitat for a variety of speciesincluding waterfowl” (p. 14), but also notes that fur-ther research and consensus-building are neededfor a better definition of these values.

These habitats are generally artifacts of devel-opment; less than 100 acres of ponds occurredaround the Bay prior to the historic period. Most ofthese areas could be enhanced, however, andbecause of the general shortage of freshwatermarshes near the Bay, could provide improvedwildlife habitat.

Beaches

The Bay region once had extensive beaches along itsedges. Assuming a 50-foot width, 200 acres of beachwould be 33 miles long. These were probably signif-icant as shorebird roosting and nesting sites, haul-outs for seals and other marine mammals, andrefuges for other wildlife.

The loss and modification of beaches has beensignificant. It is not surprising that the snowy ploverand least tern—two wildlife species dependent onbeaches—should be endangered. There is littlework on the restorability of the current beaches.Given their recreational use and the modificationsthat have so drastically changed shoreline hydrolo-gy and sediment transport, restoring or evenenhancing existing beaches may be difficult.

Uplands

Prior to the 1800s, there were almost 5,000 acres ofuplands within the Baylands, primarily islands. Today,uplands within the Bayland zone include the remnantsof those islands, undeveloped fill, and developed filland islands. Uplands near or adjacent to wetlands canbe tremendously valuable as refuges during highwater events, foraging habitat, and as buffers to treatrunoff. Many dabbling ducks and shorebirds preferupland areas adjacent to wetlands for nesting.

The uplands within the Bayland zone may havebeen modified more during the past centuries thanany other habitat type. Most uplands in theBaylands were dominated by native grasses or, morerarely, by woodlands. Today, little undevelopednative upland remains and very few stands of native

grasses survive. Most were replaced by the non-native annual grasses and forbs brought in duringthe Mission period.

There is little information on the extent ofnative uplands needed as buffer or refuge for wet-lands, and little experience in restoring nativeuplands. Although the current extent of uplandswithin the Baylands is significant, most uplands aredeveloped. About 6,500 acres of uplands arepresently undeveloped, and could be restored to amix of wetlands and uplands.

Habitats outside the Baylands

Riparian

Riparian wetlands include both woodlands and forb-dominated swales on sites that do not support trees.These areas can be very important for certain speciesof waterfowl, such as wood ducks, and significant inpollution-reduction, buffering, nutrient production,and habitat for other wildlife. The Concept Plan notesthat this community often supports the greatest vari-ety and density of resident and migratory wildlife.

Riparian habitats have been greatly reduced inthe Bay region. Aside from the loss in acreage, if weassume that the average riparian corridor is 100 feetwide, over 400 miles of creeks and streams havebeen eliminated.

Riparian restoration work has been significantin the Bay region, but it is generally very costly. Mostcreeks now carry large flows from adjacent neigh-borhoods or other developed areas, and more pollu-tants. Newly planted woodlands must be able towithstand these impacts. Many urban creeks havebeen culverted underground and, although there hasbeen some success in bringing several streams backto the surface, this is an expensive process.

Seasonal Wetlands

Seasonal wetlands are wetlands within a matrix ofuplands. The acreage figures in the attached tablesshow the extent of the total landscape, including bothwetlands and uplands. These habitats typically occuras basins in relatively flat areas or on gently rollingground. The basins are typically wetlands, and maybe termed vernal pools, seasonal wetlands or marsh-es, or wet meadows. They typically consist of seeps,

Apppendix D—Description of Habitat Types 99

wet soils, and vernal pools. The values of these habi-tats are often significant. They may host large num-bers of waterfowl and shorebirds during the winterand spring migratory periods, and may support sev-eral rare or endangered plants and invertebrates.

The loss of these areas has been great, almost75 percent of their original level. Additionally, of theremaining areas, uplands have often been convertedfrom native perennial grasses and wildflowers tonon-native annual weeds. Restoration work hasbegun on these types of habitats but most projectsare relatively new. However, large areas are poten-tially restorable.

Associated Uplands

Uplands associated with habitats outside theBaylands historically included native grasslands,shrublands, and woodlands. The value of these habi-tats was immense as filter zones for the wetlands, asrefuge for wetland-related wildlife, nesting habitat,and other functions. Many of these lands have beenconverted to other uses; defining the exact extent ofthe acreage would be impossible. Restoration hasbegun on many types of associated uplands, often asbuffers for wetland creation projects, and many ofthe issues involved have been explored and defined.


Appendix E—Goals-Setting Worksheets

DefinitionsPast: Habitat acreage circa 1800.Present: Habitat acreage circa 1998.Future: Regional ecological goal for the habitat.Protected: Public lands (or lands protected by ease-ment) dedicated to the habitat type. Includes lands pro-posed for restoration of the habitat type.Acquire: Land which needs to be placed in protectiveownership to meet JV goals. (Difference between“Future” and “Protected”.)Restore: 20 year SFBJV restoration goal. Restorationrefers to conversion from one habitat type to a differenthabitat type.Enhancement: 20 Year goal for enhancement of current-ly existing habitat. Enhanced habitats do not changehabitat type.tr: less than 500 acres (trace).

SourcesJV: San Francisco Bay Joint Venture.SFEI: San Francisco Estuary Institute, from the EcoAtlasand analyses for JV.NWI: National Wetlands Inventory, as reported in SFEP1992.GP: San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem GoalsProject, as reported in Baylands Ecosystem HabitatGoals, 1999.

GI: Bay Area Open Space Coverage developed by JohnWoodbury and GreenInfo Network na: not available

Process(1) Calculated from EcoAtlas V1.50. Expected error <10%.(2) Estimated from NWI, EcoAtlas Riparian Forest cover-age, USGS 1:100,000 Hydrology coverage. Expectederror up to 50%.(3) Estimated from NWI. Expected error up to 25%.(4) Calculated from Habitat Goals.(5) Based upon Habitat Goals research and/or narrativerecommendations.(6) Goal is preservation of present acreage.(7) Estimated from Open Space coverage and knownparcel ownership. Expected error up to 25% (potential-ly larger for TM, Lakes, and C/RZ)

Rounding:If less than 100 acres, value is rounded to nearest 10.If 100 <x< 1,000 acres, value is rounded to nearest 100.If 1,000 <x< 3,000 acres, value is rounded to nearest 500.If greater than 3,000 acres, value is rounded to nearest1000.(Because of rounding, subregional values do not alwayssum to regional total.)

Summary of Sources and Process

Regional Goals Habitats Past Present Future (Reg. Ec. Goals) Protected

Tidal Flat SFEI (1) SFEI (1) JV (5) GI/SFEI (7)

Tidal Marsh SFEI (1) SFEI (1) GP (4) GI/SFEI (7)

Lagoon SFEI (1) SFEI (1) GP (4) GI/SFEI (7)

Beach SFEI (1) SFEI (1) JV (5) GI/SFEI (7)

Salt Pond SFEI (1) SFEI (1) GP (4) GI/SFEI (7)

Storage/Treatment Pond SFEI (1) SFEI (1) GP (4) GI/SFEI (7)

Diked Wetland SFEI (1) SFEI (1) GP (4) GI/SFEI (7)

Agricultural Bayland SFEI (1) SFEI (1) GP (4) GI/SFEI (7)

Moist Grassland SFEI (1) SFEI (1) JV (6) GI/SFEI (7)

Vernal Pool Complex SFEI (1) SFEI (1) JV (6) GI/SFEI (7)

Lake na NWI/SFEI (3) JV (6) GI/SFEI (7)

Creek and Riparian Zone SFEI/NWI/USGS(2) SFEI/NWI/USGS(2) JV (5) GI/SFEI (7)

All values acres except “Creek and Riparian Zone,” which are miles. (Summed total “Creeks and Lakes” is in acres.)

SFBAY Region

EcoAtlas Habitats Past Present Future (Reg. Ec. Goals) Protected

Tidal Flat 49,000 28,000 28,000 8,000

Tidal Marsh 133,000 32,000 74,000 16,500

Lagoon 80 4,000 3,000 1,000

Beach 200 70 150 tr

Salt Pond 1,500 34,000 15,000 19,000

Storage/Treatment Pond — 4,000 4,000 2,000

Diked Wetland — 17,000 25,000 5,000

Agricultural Bayland — 30,000 0 tr

Moist Grassland 60,000 8,000 8,000 tr

Vernal Pool Complex 24,000 15,000 15,000 tr

Lake NA 12,000 NA 8,000

Creek and Riparian Zone NA NA NA tr

EcoAtlas SFBJV Tracked Past Present Future Protected Acquire Restore EnhanceHabitats Habitats

Tidal Flat Tidal Flat 49,000 28,000 28,000 8,000 12,000 4,000 6,000

Tidal Marsh Tidal Marsh 133,000 32,000 74,000 16,500 43,000 32,000 20,000

Lagoon Lagoon 80 4,000 3,000 1,000 1,500 50 2,000

Beach Beach 200 70 150 tr 113 6035

Salt Pond Salt Pond 1,500 34,000 15,000 19,000 6,000 1,000 8,000

Storage/Treatment Pond Diked Wetland — 21,000 29,000 7,000 16,000 6,000 12,000

Diked Wetland

Agricultural Bayland

Moist Grassland and84,000 53,000 NA tr 21,000 1000 10,500

Grassland Assoc. WetlandsVernal Pool Complex

Lake Lake NA 12,000 NA 8,000 3,000 1000 6,000

Creek and Creek and Riparian Zone Riparian Zone

NA NA NA tr 250 250 1,000


EcoAtlas Habitats SFBJV Tracked Habitats SFBJV Goals Habitats Acquire Restore Enhance

Tidal Flat Tidal FlatTidal Marsh Tidal Marsh

Bay Habitats 63,000 37,000 36,000Lagoon LagoonBeach Beach

Salt Pond Salt PondStorage/Treatment Pond

Diked WetlandDiked Wetland

Seasonal Wetlands 37,000 7,000 23,000Agricultural Bayland

Grassland and Moist Grassland

Assoc. WetlandsVernal Pool Complex

Lake LakeCreeks and Lakes 7,000 5,000 22,000

Creek and Riparian Zone Creek and Riparian Zone

Total 107,000 49,000 81,000

Full Bay Area (m2) 11,681,459,630.6013 Full Bay Area (acres) 2,886,552

Suisun ***(note area includes Contra Costa Shoreline plus upland habitats)


Tidal Flat 1,201 209 209 tr

Tidal Marsh 9,204 5,556 5,804 2,500

Lagoon 0 6 6 0

Beach 0 0 0 0

Salt Pond 0 0 0 0

Storage/Treatment Pond — 632 632 632

Diked Wetland — 2,145 2,145 tr

Agricultural Bayland — 160 0 0



Lake NA 2,500 2,500 tr



Tidal Flat Tidal Flat 1,201 209 209 tr 294 98 147


Lagoon Lagoon 0 6 6 0 0 0 4

Beach Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Salt Pond Salt Pond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Storage/Treatment Pond Diked Wetland — 2,777 2,786 tr 1,537 576 1,153

Diked Wetland




Lake Lake NA 2,500 2,500 tr 625 208 1,250


NA NA NA tr 36 36 146

Apppendix E—Goals Setting Worksheets 103












North Bay


Tidal Flat 13,000 9,000 9,000 3,000

Tidal Marsh 55,000 16,000 38,000 9,000

Lagoon 40 2,500 2,000 1,000

Beach 30 0 20 tr

Salt Pond 300 7,000 4,000

Storage/Treatment Pond — 1,500 1,000 1,000

Diked Wetland — 8,000 17,000 4,000

Agricultural Bayland — 28,000 0 3,000


Vernal Pool Complex 4,000 3,000 3,000 0

Lake NA 2,000 2,000 1,000





Lagoon Lagoon 40 2,500 2,000 1,000 750 31 1,333

Beach Beach 30 0 20 0 17 0 5

Salt Pond Salt Pond 3,000 7,000 4,000 6,000 1,235 206 3,133

Storage/Treatment Pond Diked Wetland — 9,500 18,000 tr 9,931 3,724 7,448

Diked Wetland




Lake Lake NA 2,000 2,000 1,000 500 167 1,000


NA NA NA tr 52 52 208











Apppendix E—Goals Setting Worksheets 105

Central Bay


Tidal Flat 14,000 4,000 4,000 1,000

Tidal Marsh 13,000 1,000 1,500 tr

Lagoon 50 700 500 tr

Beach 200 50 100 tr

Salt Pond 0 0 0 0

Storage/Treatment Pond — 60 60 0

Diked Wetland — 1,300 1,500 0

Agricultural Bayland — 30 0 tr

Moist Grassland 5,000 tr tr 0

Vernal Pool Complex 0 0 0 0

Lake NA 1,000 1,000 1,000




Tidal Marsh Tidal Marsh 13,000 1,000 1,500 tr 4,203 3,128 1,955

Lagoon Lagoon 50 700 500 tr 938 9 333

Beach Beach 200 50 100 tr 113 43 23

Salt Pond Salt Pond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Storage/Treatment Pond Diked Wetland — 1,360 1560 tr 861 323 646

Diked Wetland


Moist Grassland and5,000 30 NA tr 0 0 0


Lake Lake NA 1,000 1,000 1,000 250 83 500


NA NA NA tr 42 42 167






Seasonal Wetlands 1,000 0 1,000Agricultural Bayland






South Bay


Tidal Flat 21,000 15,000 15,000 4,000

Tidal Marsh 56,000 9,000 29,000 5,000

Lagoon 0 600 600 tr

Beach 10 20 10 0

Salt Pond 1,500 27,000 11,000 13,000

Storage/Treatment Pond — 2,000 2,000 tr

Diked Wetland — 6,000 4,000 1,000

Agricultural Bayland — 1,500 0 tr

Moist Grassland 33,000 700 700 tr


Lake NA 6,000 6,000 6,000





Lagoon Lagoon 0 600 600 tr 0 8 400

Beach Beach 10 20 10 0 6 17 2

Salt Pond Salt Pond 1,500 27,000 11,000 13,000 4,765 794 5,867

Storage/Treatment Pond Diked Wetland — 8,000 6,000 tr 3,310 1,241 2,483

Diked Wetland




Lake Lake NA 6,000 6,000 6,000 1,500 500 3,000


NA NA NA tr 120 120 479











Appendix F—Waterfowl Survey Data from San Francisco Bay

Survey Limitations

Waterfowl population goals for San Francisco Bayare based on the best available data. Currently, thebest data are the midwinter aerial surveys per-formed by USFWS personnel from the San FranciscoBay National Wildlife Refuge. Two caveats must beconsidered in any discussion of San Francisco Baywaterfowl populations. First, counting waterfowl isan inexact science, and the midwinter counts are atbest an index of local abundance. Even though theUSFWS collects the data using a repeatable protocolof standard transects, these estimates can be affect-ed by factors that have nothing to do with popula-tion changes. Examples include weather conditions,changes in migratory behavior, and observer error.Another concern is changes in the survey techniqueand area surveyed over the 45 years of its existence.Data from different decades reflect slightly differentmethodologies, and thus are not totally comparable.For example, the findings of Accurso (1992) led to amajor revamping of survey techniques in about 1998(John Takekawa, USGS-BRD, personal communica-tion). These changes resulted in more thorough cov-

erage of the Bay, and a higher percentage of birdscounted. More recently, some transects have beenremoved from the survey due to increased air trafficat San Francisco International Airport. Second, themidwinter index is not the best estimate of peakwaterfowl abundance. Accurso (1992) surveyedfrom October through April, and reported peaks forcertain species as early as October 3–4, and as lateas March 20–21. Thus the midwinter count consis-tently underestimates the peak abundance for allspecies. For this reason, Accurso’s data is used toderive correction factors that translate midwinterindices to annual peaks (Table F-3). Third, waterfowlpopulations in San Francisco Bay do not simplyreflect local habitat conditions. Rather they are aproduct of numerous factors throughout the life his-tory and geographic range of these birds. For exam-ple, conditions in the major breeding habitats of theCentral Plains will in large part determine how manywaterfowl are produced in a given year. One excep-tion is the locally breeding mallard population,which will be a valuable indicator of local habitatconditions. Restoration of wintering habitat in SanFrancisco Bay is very important, but by itself willnot ensure healthy waterfowl populations.


Figure F-1: Midwinter Indices for Scaup in the Pacific Flyway 1955–99

Figure F-2:Midwinter Indices for Canvasbacks in the Pacific Flyway 1955–99

Figure F-3:Midwinter Indices for Scoters in the Pacific Flyway 1955–99

Table F-1: Midwinter Indices for Canvasback, Scaup, Scoters, & Pintail 1955–99

Canvasback Scaup Scoters PintailsPacific % in Pacific % in Pacific % in Pacific % in Flyway SF Bay Flyway SF Bay Flyway SF Bay Flyway SF Bay

1955 73,553 40% 150,953 15% 51,736 5% 2,221,786 1%1956 57,977 62% 148,386 50% 32,989 31% 2,521,200 1%1957 154,499 90% 175,122 61% 80,289 27% 2,155,306 2%1958 142,257 56% 132,528 47% 76,846 4% 2,882,530 0%1959 108,487 61% 205,016 47% 101,582 26% 2,321,848 1%5 yr 107,355 65% 162,401 44% 68,688 19% 2,420,534 1%average

1960 50,713 36% 129,816 50% 61,855 32% 1,962,322 1%1961 50,713 29% 129,816 28% 61,855 7% 1,962,322 2%1962 44,761 50% 172,972 58% 93,413 20% 1,585,198 4%1963 100,034 77% 283,418 70% 94,616 25% 1,641,994 0%1964 80,383 63% 141,098 41% 79,972 11% 1,682,528 1%1965 54,316 47% 140,588 53% 112,740 19% 2,288,802 0%1966 45,599 63% 117,216 41% 121,874 12% 1,633,828 0%1967 78,360 56% 88,904 42% 187,214 10% 2,342,643 0%1968 69,186 68% 162,086 50% 99,852 30% 1,378,472 1%1969 51,681 61% 101,952 34% 108,414 15% 1,685,502 0%10 yr 62,575 58% 146,787 50% 102,181 17% 1,816,361 1%average

1970 63,157 45% 66,699 33% 113,000 10% 2,449,789 0%1971 47,615 49% 72,039 47% 66,337 9% 3,857,712 1%1972 48,204 53% 93,826 48% 116,425 17% 2,918,980 1%1973 54,587 57% 139,120 62% 113,232 25% 2,868,092 0%1974 83,260 10% 64,221 34% 52,121 22% 3,441,401 1%1975 77,668 25% 61,785 50% 83,459 30% 3,278,495 1%1976 83,261 31% 116,836 52% 96,801 20% 3,326,695 0%1977 89,135 25% 112,083 34% 107,554 7% 3,620,038 1%1978 78,308 11% 184,688 12% 105,877 10% 2,996,528 0%1979 80,263 15% 111,658 41% 110,313 19% 3,265,814 1%10 yr 70,546 29% 102,296 40% 96,512 16% 3,202,354 1%average

Apppendix F.1—Waterfowl Survey Data from San Francisco Bay 109

Table F-1: (continued)

Midwinter Indices for Canvasback, Scaup, Scoters, & Pintail 1955–99

Canvasback Scaup Scoters PintailsPacific % in Pacific % in Pacific % in Pacific % in Flyway SF Bay Flyway SF Bay Flyway SF Bay Flyway SF Bay

1980 87,599 29% 135,270 32% 91,492 20% 4,015,739 1981 50,432 15% 105,824 41% 79,554 35% 2,508,739 1%1982 40,596 21% 79,498 36% 49,067 3% 1,831,832 0%1983 57,933 22% 95,123 40% 51,299 19% 1,181,335 0%1984 73,801 20% 190,833 49% 106,388 31% 2,411,716 1%1985 60,996 55% 154,416 40% 113,554 22% 859,305 0%1986 44,626 42% 223,838 60% 165,222 23% 1,254,794 1%1987 31,570 42% 87,214 38% 62,455 29% 663,212 1%1988 28,857 36% 125,835 45% 95,435 41% 1,262,689 1%1989 45,888 44% 143,363 44% 86,617 28% 685,403 1%10 yr 52,230 32% 134,121 44% 90,108 26% 1,667,476 1%

average

1990 54,861 46% 196,652 62% 125,597 38% 888,876 1%1991 42,690 55% 201,662 55% 139,892 46% 1,051,819 0%1992 37,855 75% 170,566 59% 127,292 61% 773,548 2%1993 37,509 16% 137,225 43% 52,578 28% 741,120 0%1994 29,233 29% 154,321 61% 74,035 53% 1,055,970 0%1995 23,994 43% 129,188 34% 50,134 23% 1,012,086 0%1996 24,476 0% 87,099 0% 50,618 0% 1,435,296 0%1997 57,447 7% 154,245 38% 69,563 34% 962,026 0%1998 53,631 22% 205,084 43% 88,807 52% 1,278,494 0%1999 41,847 51% 201,207 58% 61,358 56% 1,129,553 1%10 yr 40,354 34% 163,725 49% 83,987 43% 1,032,879 0%average

45 yr 62,085 44% 139,584 46% 90,474 24% 1,984,297 1%average

Table F-2: Midwinter Aerial Surveys for Waterfowl in San Francisco Bay (including salt ponds)

Canvasback Scaup Scoters Pintails

1955 29311 22896 2650 156121956 35810 73672 10300 224751957 139365 107480 21750 419801958 80180 61855 3055 138951959 65825 95350 26650 22095

5 year average 70098.2 72250.6 12881 23211.4

1960 18095 64270 19935 264451961 14650 36320 4570 396201962 22445 99650 18570 559351963 77325 197185 23464 29601964 50550 58085 8720 131451965 25523 74340 21313 104521966 28580 47640 15013 62001967 44120 37565 18930 67221968 47022 80440 29775 157701969 31595 34490 16360 1735

10 yr average 35990.5 72998.5 17665 17898.4


Table F-2: (continued)

Midwinter Aerial Surveys for Waterfowl in San Francisco Bay (including salt ponds)

Canvasback Scaup Scoters Pintails

1970 28370 22080 10745 43251971 23260 33610 6010 198401972 25378 45485 19272 317351973 31315 85676 27819 95871974 8035 21795 11390 172901975 19086 30760 25326 284301976 26025 60285 19100 76101977 22160 37865 7235 365901978 8752 22352 10804 132951979 11735 45410 21265 19940

10 yr average 20411.6 40531.8 15896.6 18864.2

1980 25260 43930 17885 283001981 7700 42990 27850 50701982 8470 28800 1250 11751983 12910 38110 9865 144801984 14860 93075 33300 114851985 33555 61970 24610 75351986 18599 134605 38502 147171987 13265 33282 18134 33191988 10245 56908 39352 123791989 20272 62728 24106 4006

10 yr average 16513.6 59639.8 23485.4 10246.6

1990 25087 122092 48278 51191991 23391 110331 63867 29641992 28297 100895 77040 130751993 5875 59503 14537 5971994 8565 94379 39368 19021995 10428 44223 11459 42051996 No survey No survey No survey No survey1997 3746 58659 23352 17801998 11575 87301 46037 26211999 21316 117141 34143 14323

9 yr average 13828.3 79452.4 35808.1 4658.9

44 year average 27,065 64,166 22,066 14,061

Source: Dan Yparraguirre, Waterfowl Coordinator, California Department of Fish & Game

Table F-3:Conversion Factors for Deriving Annual Peak Waterfowl Counts from Midwinter Aerial Survey Data Conversions are species-specific, and are based on the three years of fall–winter surveys conducted byAccurso (1992). To obtain annual peak, multiply midwinter count by the conversion factor.

Species Peak Conversion FactorNorthern pintail 1.341622Canvasback 1.451713Scaup 1.603405Scoter 1.476519

Apppendix F.1—Waterfowl Survey Data from San Francisco Bay 111

Restoring the Estuary

Documents