Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1288
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-08-31T04:00Z

Estuary
NewsLetter
Online
­
June
1996
Estuary
Newsletter,
June
1996
June
1996
Table
of
Contents
 
Refineries
Research
Selenium
Disposal
 
Bits
&
Bytes
 
CALFED
Brief:
Demanding
Demand
Management
 
Bulletin
Board
Sacramento
River
Red­
Legged
Frog
Listed
Salmon,
Smelt
Recovery
Plans
Water
Districts'
Deal
 
Inside
the
Agencies:
Lukewarm
Hot
Spots
 
Business
Wise:
Trimming
Port
Plans
 
Re­
Hab:
A
Three
Year
Wetlands
Scorecard
 
CCMP
Brief:
Muddy
Wetlands
Progress
 
Legal
Brief:
The
Zombie
Drain
 
Capital
Brief:
Kinder,
Gentler
Species
Act
 
SPECIAL
INSERT:
Cooperative
Efforts
To
Protect
And
Restore
The
Wetlands
Of
San
Francisco
Bay
REFINERIES
RESEARCH
SELENIUM
DISPOSAL
Unocal,
Shell,
and
Exxon
are
taking
three
different
paths
toward
what
hopefully
will
be
a
common
destination
­
a
significant
reduction
of
selenium
flowing
from
their
refineries
into
the
Bay.
Under
terms
of
an
out
of
court
settlement
with
state
regulators,
the
three
oil
companies
agreed
to
reduce
selenium
discharge
levels
to
50
ppb
by
July
1998.
The
type
of
selenium
­
called
selenite
­
discharged
by
the
North
Bay
oil
industry
bioaccumulates
in
the
food
chain
four
times
faster
than
the
stuff
coming
downriver
from
the
selenium­
rich
soils
in
agricultural
areas
upstream.
But
at
the
time
of
the
settlement,
no
technology
existed
that
would
allow
the
oil
companies
to
reach
the
reduction
goal.

The
refineries
(
along
with
three
others
that
were
already
in
compliance)
undertook
a
joint
study
to
identify
potential
selenium
reduction
methods.
That
study
was
completed
last
summer,
and
the
three
are
now
engaged
in
separate
pilot
testing
programs.

Each
refinery
is
using
a
proprietary
approach
it
believes
best
fits
its
own
circumstances.
Exxon
is
developing
a
"
reverse
osmosis"
technology,
removing
the
selenium
with
a
membrane
filter,
then
feeding
the
waste
products
into
a
fluid
coker.
This
bonds
the
selenium
with
coke,
which
then
can
hopefully
be
used
as
a
fuel.

Unocal
is
testing
an
"
ion
exchange"
method,
circulating
contaminated
wastewater
through
a
column
packed
with
resin.
As
water
flows
through
the
column,
selenium
ions
replace
chloride
ions
on
the
outside
of
the
resin
beads.
The
refinery
estimates
that
the
process
will
generate
500­
600
pounds
of
solid
waste
a
day,
which
would
contain
about
five
pounds
of
actual
selenium.
Unocal
engineer
Marjorie
Hatter
says
that
the
fact
the
process
"
is
real
specific
to
selenium,"
doesn't
need
wastewater
ponds,
and
produces
relatively
small
amount
of
solid
waste
make
it
especially
suitable
for
the
Rodeo
refinery.

Shell
is
redesigning
its
refinery
in
order
to
meet
the
state's
clean
fuels
guidelines,
and
is
pilot
testing
new
wastewater
treatment
systems.
It
is
also
testing
an
iron
coprecipitation­
based
control
measure,
in
which
iron
particles
bond
with
the
selenium.
The
sludge,
which
contains
selenium
by
products,
is
then
treated
as
a
hazardous
waste
product.

The
S.
F.
Regional
Board's
Kim
Taylor
says
the
new
technologies
look
"
promising,"
although
there
are
"
still
bugs
to
be
worked
out."
Once
the
pilot
tests
are
completed,
the
refineries
will
design
and
build
full
scale
systems.

Taylor
says
the
Board
is
"
satisfied
that
all
three
refineries
are
complying"
with
the
settlement,
but
environmentalists
aren't
so
sure.
They
want
board
members
to
impose
specific
timelines
for
completion
of
the
pilot
tests
and
implementation
of
the
new
processes.
They
point
out
that
high
selenium
levels
have
been
found
in
Bay
seals,
birds
and
fish,
and
they
fear
that
the
substance
could
cause
genetic
and
reproductive
problems
like
those
found
in
waterfowl
living
in
the
polluted
Kesterson
Refuge.
"
We
believe
that
some
assurances
are
needed,"
says
BayKeeper's
Mike
Lozeau.
Contact:
Kim
Taylor
(
510)
286­
3821
BITS
&
BYTES
 
Environmentalists
got
lucky
when
a
federal
appeals
court
ruled
in
their
favor
over
a
lawsuit
against
Unocal
concerning
their
selenium
discharges
this
spring.
The
judges
ruled
that
the
enviro's
lawsuit
could
proceed
because
the
$
780,000
the
company
agreed
to
pay
as
part
of
the
1994
settlement
(
see
"
Refineries")
was
not
an
actual
"
penalty"
that
would
have
precluded
a
private
suit
in
the
selenium
matter.
 
A
National
Invasive
Species
Act
was
introduced
in
Congress
on
March
29,
1996
(
S1660/
HR3217).
The
bill
features
voluntary
national
guidelines
for
ballast
water
exchange
at
high
sea,
as
well
as
record­
keeping
to
establish
compliance.
Such
issues
were
also
aired
before
a
national
audience
at
an
educational
forum
on
ballast
exchange
and
non­
native
species
held
on
June
17
by
the
S.
F.
Estuary
Project.
 
How
to
band
birds,
map
geography
and
monitor
water
quality
were
skills
participants
in
the
Third
Bay
Area
Volunteer
Monitoring
Conference
learned
during
three
field
trips
to
local
creeks.
Over
125
would­
be
and
experienced
volunteer
monitors
and
program
managers
attended
the
May
10­
12
conference.
In
addition
to
the
hands­
on
field
trips,
the
event
­
coordinated
by
the
S.
F.
Estuary
Institute
and
Friends
of
San
Leandro
Creek
­
featured
sessions
on
the
student
monitoring,
data
management
and
the
role
of
volunteer
monitoring
programs
in
watershed
management.
 
Schoolchildren
waved
banners
written
in
Japanese
off
the
shores
of
the
South
Bay's
Bair
Island
on
June
1,
banners
begging
a
developer
to
help
the
wetlands.
It
was
the
latest
effort
by
environmental
groups
to
turn
up
the
heat
on
Kumagai
Gumi
Construction
of
Tokyo
which
has
rebuffed
attempts
to
add
the
island
to
the
San
Francisco
Bay
National
Wildlife
Refuge.
The
1,700
acre
diked
Bair
Island,
which
is
actually
three
separate
islands,
is
part
of
Redwood
City,
where
it
is
zoned
tidal,
a
city
official
says.

CALFED
BRIEF:
DEMANDING
DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
Brown
lawns
and
abbreviated
showers
are
facts
of
life
for
Californians
during
drought­
time.
Industry
and
agriculture,
as
well,
tighten
their
belts
when
the
reservoirs
run
dry.
After
the
rain
returns,
however,
water
use
habits
often
rebound
to
their
high,
pre­
drought
levels.
The
question
which
Californians
now
face
is
whether
they
will
meet
the
increasing
water
needs
of
their
fastgrowing
state
through
drought­
style
demand
management
­
i.
e.
the
reduction
of
demand
through
greater
water
conservation
and
efficiency
­
or
by
building
new
dams,
reservoirs
and
canals.

The
CALFED
Bay­
Delta
process,
now
in
the
stage
of
narrowing
long­
term
"
options"
for
meeting
increasing
water
needs
while
restoring
the
Estuary's
health,
is
grappling
with
this
contentious
debate
by
developing
a
common
program
for
demand
management
within
each
of
its
ten
current
options.
CALFED's
Bay­
Delta
Advisory
Council
(
a
public
advisory
group)
has
established
a
work
group
whose
goal
is
to
determine
which
water
efficiency
measures
should
be
recommended
and
how
they
can
best
be
implemented.
According
to
chairperson
Judith
Redmond,
the
work
group
will
concentrate
on
broad
policy
questions
rather
than
getting
stuck
in
the
specifics
of
how
much
water
will
be
reduced
where.

CALFED's
Rick
Soehren
says
the
work
group
is
considering
a
flexible
approach
that
allows
local
districts
to
"
put
together
the
best
mix
of
water
supply,
water
conservation,
and
water
recycling
for
their
service
areas
given
regional
conditions
and
changes
in
the
water
supply
picture
based
on
the
outcome
of
the
CALFED
process."
While
receiving
the
strong
support
of
local
water
districts,
this
flexible
approach
concerns
the
environmental
coalition
which
fears
some
districts
would
leave
water
use
efficiency
out
of
the
picture.
Soehren
agrees
that
regulatory
and
financial
incentives
will
be
necessary
to
ensure
that
adequate
measures
are
implemented.

The
Westlands
Water
District
is
one
agricultural
water
district
that
has
set
an
extremely
positive
precedent
for
local
districts'
ability
to
achieve
significant
water
use
efficiency.
In
the
wake
of
the
recent
five­
year
drought,
the
district
invested
heavily
in
water­
saving
equipment
and
improved
farm
management
practices
achieving
a
per
acre
water
use
reduction
of
over
10%
by
1992.
The
District's
Tracy
Slavin
says
other
districts
have
had
similar
successes
that
are
"
just
not
as
widely
published."
During
the
drought,
Slavin
explains,
many
districts
experienced
such
reduced
water
supply
and
increased
water
costs
that
investment
in
drip­
irrigation
sprigets,
pre­
irrigation
sprinklers,
and
other
more
efficient
equipment
became
necessary
for
survival.
Having
invested
significant
capital
in
this
But
environmentalists
believe
that
even
greater
water
savings
are
possible
from
improved
irrigation
efficiency
and
from
shifts
in
cropping
patterns
away
from
low­
value,
water­
intensive
crops
such
as
alfalfa
and
irrigated
pasture.
They
are
concerned
that
conservation
measures
which
they
view
as
partial,
on
the
urban
scene
as
well,
will
be
accepted
as
adequate
demand
management.
Without
stronger
emphasis
on
demand
management,
they
fear
the
CALFED
process
could
prematurely
reach
the
conclusion
that
new
water
moving
and
storing
infrastructure
is
the
best
solution
to
California's
perpetual
water
shortage.

Environmentalists
have
reason
for
concern.
Despite
a
clear
consensus
supporting
increased
demand
management,
most
water
agencies
involved
with
the
CALFED
process
seem
to
think
that
new
water
infrastructure
is
a
foregone
conclusion.
The
California
Urban
Water
Agencies'
Byron
Buck
says,
"
Conservation
is
part
of
the
solution,
not
the
total
solution.
California
will
gain
12
million
people
in
the
next
20
years.
Conservation
can
not
meet
all
of
the
increased
demand."
The
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council's
Ronnie
Weiner
insists
that
better
management
of
the
existing
resource
could
stretch
beyond
what
anyone
is
willing
to
see.
"
Looking
to
cement
as
the
first
solution
is
what
got
us
into
trouble
in
the
first
place,"
she
says.

Contact:
Judith
Redmond,
(
916)
756­
8518;
Byron
Buck,
(
916)
552­
2929;
Ronnie
Weiner,
(
415)
777­
0220
BULLETIN
BOARD
The
Sacramento
River
The
Sacramento
River
is
toxic
50%
of
the
time
to
bioassay
test
species,
often
exceeds
water
quality
criteria
for
pesticides,
copper,
lead
and
mercury,
yet
supplies
80%
of
the
Estuary's
freshwater.
These
are
three
major
reasons
why
the
Central
Valley
Regional
Board
has
deemed
the
river
basin
a
priority
watershed
worthy
of
a
combined
new
watershed
management
and
toxic
pollutant
control
effort.

The
pollutant
component
will
implement
basinwide
water
quality
monitoring,
develop
sitespecific
water
quality
standards
for
the
river
(
where
appropriate),
evaluate
pollutant
control
options
for
point
and
nonpoint
sources,
and
develop
a
program
to
meet
any
new
standards.
It
will
also
serve
as
the
water
quality
component
of
the
board's
new
Sacramento
River
Watershed
Program,
which
seeks
to
integrate
all
pollution
control
and
natural
resource
stewardship
programs
on
a
watershed
scale.

"
The
metal
problem
starts
at
the
top
of
the
watershed
with
the
Shasta
mines
and
reaches
all
the
way
down
to
copper
inputs
to
the
South
Bay,"
says
the
Board's
Val
Connor.
"
If
you
really
want
to
address
the
problem
you
have
to
deal
with
the
whole
26,000
square
mile
river
watershed."
Connor
is
now
seeking
participants
for
a
stakeholder
group
of
farmers,
dischargers,
water
users,
miners,
fisherpeople,
nature
lovers
and
the
like.
(
916)
255­
3111
Red­
Legged
Frog
Listed
An
old
dinner­
delicacy
­
the
California
red­
legged
frog
­
recently
leapt
onto
the
threatened
species
list.
The
decision
marked
the
first
federal
listing
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act
in
over
a
year,
ending
a
moratorium
on
all
federal
listing
activities
enacted
by
Congress
in
April
1995.
The
frog,
which
dwells
in
small,
coastal
wetlands
and
freshwater
streams
from
Marin
County
down
to
Ventura,
has
suffered
from
habitat
loss,
stream
sedimentation
and
exotic
predators
such
as
the
bullfrog.
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife's
Karen
Miller
expects
the
listing
to
provide
greater
leverage
in
denying
frog­
threatening
habitat
alterations.
(
916)
979­
2710
MB
Salmon,
Smelt
Recovery
Plans
Officials
are
wrapping
up
two
recovery
plans
for
fish
in
follow­
up
to
the
1993
listing
of
Delta
smelt
and
1990
listing
of
winter­
run
Chinook
salmon
as
endangered
species.
The
smelt
joined
a
suite
of
six
other
native
Delta
fish
in
one
of
the
new­
style
ecosystem­
based,
rather
than
single
species
based,
recovery
plans
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
has
embraced
since
1994.
The
Final
Delta
Native
Fishes
Recovery
Plan
was
completed
this
June.

Meanwhile,
Draft
Recommendations
for
Recovery
of
Sacramento
River
Winter­
Run
Chinook
Salmon
were
completed
in
March
1996
and
are
now
being
reviewed
by
agencies
before
release
for
public
comment.
Salmon
recovery
is
also
pushed
in
the
March
1996
draft
Anadromous
Fish
Restoration
Plan.
This
176­
action
plan
created
to
meet
the
Central
Valley
Project
Improvement
Act
goal
of
doubling
anadromous
fish
populations
­
is
due
for
finalization
this
summer.
(
310)
980­
4021
(
salmon);
(
916)
979­
2752
(
Delta
fishes);
(
209)
946­
6400
(
AFRP)
ARO
Water
Districts'
Deal
"
A
threat
to
the
truce,"
is
what
one
environmentalist
called
a
deal
proposed
by
San
Joaquin
valley
agricultural
water
districts
and
big
city
water
users
to
the
State
Water
Board
this
spring.
The
deal
would
decrease
minimum
San
Joaquin
river
pulse
flows
at
Vernalis
set
under
the
Bay­
Delta
Accord
to
protect
fall­
run
salmon
and
Delta
smelt
­
a
minimum
the
dealmakers
agreed
to
when
they
signed
onto
the
accord
along
with
government
and
environmental
interests
in
1994.

The
deal
proposes
a
flow
reduction
from
3000­
8000
cfs
over
30
days
during
the
critical
fall­
run
migration
period
to
2000­
5000
cfs,
flows
that
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife's
Marty
Kjelson
says
aren't
anywhere
near
enough
to
meet
federal
and
state
goals
of
doubling
anadromous
fish.
Also
irking
environmentalists
is
a
January
filing
by
the
City
of
San
Francisco,
also
an
original
accord
signer,
in
support
of
a
lawsuit
brought
by
the
San
Joaquin
group
last
year
which
challenges
the
scientific
backing
of
Vernalis
flows.
In
the
meantime,
the
San
Joaquin
group
argues
that
their
proposal
is
entirely
consistent
with
the
spirit
of
the
accord
and
would
even
increase
the
level
of
environmental
protection
for
San
Joaquin
River
salmon.

FH
INSIDE
THE
AGENCIES:
LUKEWARM
HOT
SPOTS
Environmentalists
vowed
this
May
to
fight
to
stop
the
State
Water
Board
from
scaling
back
its
Bay
Protection
and
Toxic
Cleanup
Program
from
a
toxic
hot
spots
ranking
and
clean­
up
program
to
a
hot
spot
identification
and
monitoring
program.
"
Monitoring
isn't
good
enough,"
says
environmentalist
Alvin
Greenberg,
who
sits
on
the
program's
public
advisory
committee.
"
The
program
cries
out
for
full
implementation
as
our
legislators
first
envisioned
it."
Since
the
legislature
created
it
in
1989,
the
program
has
failed
to
fulfill
many
of
its
mandates
and
meet
its
deadlines
at
the
state
level.
It
has
still
not
produced
an
agreed­
upon
set
of
sediment
quality
objectives
or
ranking
criteria
for
defining
and
prioritizing
hot
spots
for
clean
up.

Criticisms
of
the
program
abound.
Some
accuse
it
of
spending
too
much
money
on
staff
salaries
and
research
and
not
enough
on
clean
up.
Others
say
the
program
and
its
advisory
committee
spent
too
much
time
bickering
over
how
to
characterize
hot
spots
and
assess
relative
risks.
Fingers
have
been
pointed
in
all
directions
­
at
dischargers
on
the
committee
for
stalling
agreement
on
the
science,
at
the
Governor
for
lack
of
interest
in
moving
the
program
ahead,
at
environmentalists
for
being
unwilling
to
compromise,
at
the
State
Board
for
program
mismanagement.

"
A
charge
was
levied
to
investigate
a
problem
and
not
a
lot
has
been
done,"
says
Charles
Batts
of
the
Bay
Area
Dischargers
Association.
Fees
on
dischargers
fund
the
program,
but
the
shortfalls
between
projected
and
actual
revenues
have
been
a
major
problem.
According
to
the
Board's
Gita
Kapahi,
"
The
law
still
requires
us
to
do
100%
of
the
program,
but
we
only
have
50%
of
the
money."

"
Both
business
and
environmentalists
agree
we
want
to
clean
up
hot
spots,"
says
the
Bay
Planning
Coalition's
Ellen
Johnck,
who
also
sits
on
the
program's
advisory
committee.
"
The
real
crunch
is
how
to
do
it
in
a
cost
effective
way
relative
to
the
degree
of
environmental
risk."
Cost
effective,
at
this
point,
seems
to
mean
scaling
back
to
a
monitoring
only
program.

But
environmentalists
aren't
planning
to
give
in
easy.
Save
the
Bay,
Greenberg
and
others
want
to
strengthen
not
weaken
the
state's
program.
To
do
this,
they
say
they
may
need
to
extend
the
January
1999
end
date,
find
new
program
funds,
and
get
more
citizens
onto
the
advisory
committee.
Funds
could
come
from
adding
agriculture
to
the
group
of
"
dischargers"
assessed
fees.

One
obstacle,
disagreement
over
the
state
of
the
science,
had
a
breakthrough
this
May.
Though
dischargers
claimed
the
science
was
too
cutting
edge
to
go
with
at
a
November
State
Board
hearing,
a
panel
of
well­
known
scientists
endorsed
the
program's
scientific
approach
and
studies
this
May,
according
to
Kapahi.

At
the
regional
level,
the
S.
F.
Board
is
already
using
the
science
they've
developed
under
the
program
to
guide
hot
spot
screening
and
clean
up.
Indeed
the
S.
F.
Board's
Karen
Taberski
says
she's
tired
of
hearing
so
many
criticisms
when
her
region's
program
has
made
so
much
progress
­
providing
seed
money
for
the
now
successful
Regional
Monitoring
Program,
completing
the
first
study
of
contaminants
in
Bay
fish,
identifying
five
reliable
reference
sites
for
ambient
Bay
conditions
(
cleanest
we
can
expect),
selecting
a
preferred
combination
of
five
toxicity
tests
for
anyone
sampling
sediments,
developing
a
statistical
method
and
using
it
to
screen
over
100
potential
toxic
hot
spots
and
develop
clean
up
priorities.

Taberski
says
her
region's
Bay
Protection
effort
has
also
been
instrumental
in
coordinating
sediment
guidance
for
the
clean
up
of
numerous
Department
of
Defense
sites
and
other
"
hot
spots"
and
cites
the
Central
Valley
Regional
Board's
work
to
pinpoint
sources
of
pesticide
toxicity
in
water
and
mercury
accumulation
in
fish.

"
Both
regional
boards
have
been
busting
themselves
to
identify
sources
of
toxicity
and
place
control
measures
on
those
sources,
"
she
says.
"
Our
region
has
hit
everything
the
Bay
Protection
legislation
requires."
But
where
one
region
makes
progress
another
does
nothing,
says
Greenberg.
"
We
still
need
some
statewide
accountability,"
he
says.

ARO
&
EC
BUSINESS
WISE:
TRIMMING
PORT
PLANS
How
much
more
land
will
Bay
ports
need
in
25
years
to
accommodate
projected
growth?
Not
as
much
as
they
once
thought,
says
the
S.
F.
Bay
Commission.

On
April
18,
the
commission
officially
revised
its
Seaport
Plan,
reducing
the
amount
of
property
set
aside,
or
"
landbanked,"
for
future
port
use,
from
11,000
to
just
under
3,000
acres,
even
though
the
amount
of
cargo
coming
into
the
Bay
is
expected
to
increase
from
16.5
million
to
over
43
million
metric
tons
between
1995
and
2020.
The
Commission's
Will
Travis
says
the
lesser
amount
of
land
will
be
adequate
because
newer
technology
allows
ports
to
put
"
more
cargo
through
less
space
faster."

The
move
was
generally
applauded
by
local
government
and
property
owners,
who
want
to
free
up
more
prime
shoreline
acreage
for
other
types
of
development.
Alameda
officials
objected
to
the
Commission's
retaining
220
acres
of
the
city's
soon
to
be
closed
navy
base,
fearing
it
would
interfere
with
their
plans
to
convert
the
property
to
civilian
use.
But
Travis
points
out
that
the
Commission
lifted
the
port
designation
from
nearly
90%
of
the
Alameda
base
and
added
more
flexible
language
to
the
final
plan
which
could
free
up
the
remaining
10%
in
the
future.

Redwood
City
industries,
worried
that
office
and
commercial
development
could
disrupt
access
to
their
facilities,
opposed
the
removal
106
acres
in
their
area
from
the
port
plan.
BCDC
overruled
their
objections,
however,
saying
the
land
won't
be
needed
for
future
port
use.

"
The
Commission
did
a
quality
job,"
says
the
Port
of
Oakland's
Jim
McGrath.

Contact:
S.
F.
Bay
Commission
(
415)
557­
3686
O'B
RE­
HAB:
A
THREE­
YEAR
SCORECARD
Wetlands
Acquired
and
Restored
in
S.
F.
Bay­
Delta
Estuary
Major
Acquisitions:
26,470
acres
(
of
current
wetland
areas
or
areas
to
be
restored
to
wetlands)

SOUTH
BAY
 
Baumberg
Tract,
835
acres,
Wildlife
Conservation
Board
 
Don
Edwards
S.
F.
Bay
Nat'l
Wildlife
Refuge,
2,746
acres,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
 
Mayhews
Landing,
108
acres,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
NORTH
BAY
 
Cargill
Salt
Ponds
­­
Napa
River
Unit,
9,850
acres,
Wildlife
Conservation
Board
 
Napa­
Sonoma
Marshes
Wildlife
Area,
120
acres,
Wildlife
Conservation
Board
 
Shell
Marsh,
60
acres,
East
Bay
Reg.
Parks
 
Tolay
Creek,
53
acres,
Wildlife
Conservation
Board
DELTA
 
Grizzly
Slough
Property,
500
acres,
Dept
of
Water
Resources
 
Palm
Tract,
1,213
acres,
Cal
Fish
&
Game
 
Prospect
Island,
1,200
acres,
BurRec/
Trust
for
Public
Land
 
Sherman
Island,
6,400
acres,
Water
Resources
 
Stone
Lakes
National
Wildlife
Refuge,
830
acres,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
 
Twitchell
Island,
2,400
acres,
Water
Resources
Completed
Restoration
Enhancement
Projects:
9,544
acres
SOUTH
BAY
 
New
Chicago
Marsh,
Don
Edwards
S.
F.
Nat'l
Wildlife
Refuge,
340
acres,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
 
San
Leandro
Shoreline
Marsh,
172
acres,
San
Leandro
 
Warm
Springs
Mouse
Pasture,
25
acres,
Don
Edwards
S.
F.
Nat'l
Wildlife
Refuge
NORTH
BAY
 
Cargill
Salt
Ponds­­
Napa
River
Unit,
Pond
2A,
550
acres,
Cal
Fish
&
Game
 
JFK
Memorial
Marsh,
20
acres,
Napa
 
Petaluma
River
Marsh,
55
acres,
Sonoma
Land
Trust
 
Sonoma
Baylands,
37
acres,
Coastal
Conservancy
DELTA
 
Ducks
Unlimited
­­
18
enhancement
projects
throughout
the
Delta,
approx.
7000
acres
 
Medford
Island,
1,215
acres,
private
consortium
 
Palm
Tract,
130
acres,
Cal
Fish
&
Game
In­
Progress
Restoration
Enhancement
Projects:
18,828
acres
SOUTH
BAY
 
Cooley
Landing
Salt
Pond,
128
acres,
Mid­
Peninsula
Open
Space
District
 
Charleston
Slough,
150
acres,
Mountain
View
 
Coyote
Hills
Enhancement,
1,021
acres,
East
Bay
Regional
Park
District
 
Knapp
parcel­­
Don
Edwards
S.
F.
Bay
Nat'l
Wildlife
Refuge,
400
acres,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
 
Mosley
Tract,
53
acres,
San
Jose
 
Oliver
Property,
155
acres,
Hayward
Area
Recreation
&
Park
District
 
Oro
Loma
Marsh,
357
acres,
East
Bay
Regional
Parks
NORTH
BAY
 
Cargill
Salt
Ponds­­
Napa
River
Unit,
7,000
acres,
Cal
Fish
&
Game
 
Cullinan
Ranch­­
San
Pablo
Bay
Nat'l
Wildlife
Refuge,
1,493
acres,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
 
Hamilton
Runway/
Antennae
Field,
930
acres,
Coastal
Conservancy
 
Leonard
Ranch,
520
acres,
Sonoma
Land
Trust/
Coastal
Conservancy
 
Petaluma
Marsh­­
Burdel
Unit,
640
acres,
Cal
Fish
&
Game
 
Peyton
Slough,
550
acres,
Contra
Costa
Mosquito
District/
Cal
Fish
&
Game/
East
Bay
Regional
Parks/
Shell
Trustees
 
Point
Edith
Enhancement,
411
acres,
Contra
Costa
Mosquito
Abatement
District
 
Scottsdale
Pond,
50
acres,
Novato
 
Sonoma
Baylands,
285
acres,
Coastal
Conservancy
 
Suisun
Sand
Company,
35
acres,
East
Bay
Regional
Parks
 
Tolay
Creek
Est.
Restoration
Project,
433
acres,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife/
Cal
Fish
&
Game
 
Union
City
Marsh,
250
acres,
Alameda
Flood
Control/
S.
F.
Bay
Joint
Venture
DELTA
 
Cosumnes
River
Watershed,
1,100
acres,
Nature
Conservancy/
Partners
for
Wildlife
 
Rush
Ranch,
130
acres,
Solano
County
Farmlands
&
Open
Space
District
 
Yolo
Basin
Wetlands,
2,341
acres,
Army
Corps/
Cal
Fish
&
Game/
Ducks
Unlimited
 
Yolo
Basin
Wetlands
­
Davis
site,
396
acres,
Army
Corps/
City
of
Davis
CCMP
BRIEF:
MUDDY
WETLANDS
PROGRESS
Stronger
planning,
improved
regulation
and
increased
acquisition
and
restoration
are
the
main
thrust
of
12
wetland
management
actions
called
for
in
the
S.
F.
Estuary
Project's
1993
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
CCMP).
A
new
review
of
CCMP
Implementation
Progress
suggests
that
since
the
plan's
creation,
little
progress
has
been
made
toward
a
centerpiece
actioncreating
a
comprehensive,
Estuarywide
wetlands
management
plan
­
but
essential
elements
of
the
planning
process
are
moving
ahead.

One
element
­
the
setting
of
goals
for
what
types
of
wetlands
are
necessary
where
and
in
what
quantities
to
maintain
the
ecosystem's
health
­
is
finally
making
headway
after
three
years
of
false
starts.
This
biological
foundation
for
the
regional
wetlands
management
plan,
known
as
the
"
ecosystem
goals
project,"
is
due
for
completion
by
spring
1997.
Another
key
planning
element,
the
creation
of
geographically­
focused,
cooperative
efforts
to
protect
wetlands,
has
seen
a
substantial
flowering
in
the
North
Bay
(
see
opposite).

Although
the
political
climate
has
shifted
considerably
since
the
CCMP
called
for
stronger
and
smoother
state
wetlands
protection
policies
and
programs,
both
the
state
and
the
region
have
adopted
no
net
loss
policies
since
1993,
and
a
trial
project
for
state
assumption
of
federal
404
permitting
is
finally
freeing
itself
from
years
of
bureaucratic
muckitymuck.
But
the
CCMP's
strong
vision
for
improving
the
wetland
regulatory
system
is
far
from
realized.

CCMP
actions
calling
for
wetland
acquisition
and
restoration
efforts,
while
hampered
by
financial
scarcity,
made
strides
(
see
scorecard,
corrections
welcome)
and
necessity
­
the
mother
of
improvisation
­
led
to
increased
partnerships
with
private
landowners
to
create
conservation
easements
and
habitat­
improving
land
management
practices.
A
rough
accounting
indicates
that
over
26,000
acres
of
wetlands
have
been
acquired
and
over
28,000
restored
(
completed
or
inprogress
since
1993.
Future
acquisition
and
restoration
efforts
should
be
strengthened
by
the
1995
creation
of
the
S.
F.
Bay
Joint
Venture
(
see
opposite).

For
a
copy
of
the
new
CCMP
progress
review,
available
July
10,
call
(
510)
286­
0780.
ARO
&
MB
LEGAL
BRIEF:
THE
ZOMBIE
DRAIN
In
the
African
Congo,
natives
fear
a
voodoo
snake
deity
called
a
zombie
for
its
power
to
reanimate
a
dead
body.
In
California's
San
Joaquin
Valley,
environmentalists
fear
a
similar
power
has
breathed
new
life
into
a
drainage
project
they
thought
long
laid
to
rest
­
completion
of
a
controversial
canal
that
would
export
the
valley's
saline
and
selenium­
tainted
drainage
water
to
the
Bay
and
Delta.
This
"
zombie
drain"
has
been
making
increasingly
less
ghostly
appearances
in
courts,
state
policies
and
government
plans
of
late.

Because
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
was
once
a
great
inland
sea,
a
layer
of
clay
now
underlies
the
productive
agricultural
center,
trapping
irrigation
water
in
a
saline
basin.
The
San
Luis
Unit
Authority
Act
of
1950
required
the
government
to
help
farmers
drain
the
land
and
it
began
by
building
the
85­
mile­
long
San
Luis
Drain.
The
drain
was
never
completed
and
connected
to
Delta
rivers
or
waterways,
first
due
to
ballooning
costs
and
later
because
its
truncated
terminus
at
Kesterson
National
Wildlife
Refuge
led
to
shocking
birth
deformities
in
refuge
birds,
which
biologists
attributed
to
selenium
in
the
drain
water.
The
drain
was
closed,
most
thought
forever.

A
1990
report
detailed
alternatives
to
draining
the
salt
and
selenium­
tainted
water
into
the
Bay
and
Delta,
stressing
water
conservation
measures
and
land
retirement.
But
the
$
50
million
report's
recommendations
have
only
been
implemented
by
pilot
programs
so
far.
In
the
meantime,
as
BurRec
attorney
Jim
Turner
phrased
it,
"
the
bathtub
was
filling."
In
1993,
farmers
in
the
Westlands
Water
District,
where
the
drainage
problem
is
most
severe,
persuaded
a
federal
district
court
judge
to
request
BurRec
to
complete
the
San
Luis
Drain.
The
Bureau
appealed
the
decision
and
on
May
1,
1995,
the
Ninth
Circuit
Court
in
San
Francisco
ordered
all
parties
into
mediation.

But
BurRec,
bound
by
an
order
from
the
district
court
judge,
has
already
had
to
begin
discussions
with
the
State
Board
concerning
requirements
for
its
drain
discharge
permit.
The
Board,
in
turn,
has
directed
its
staff
to
give
BurRec
guidance
concerning
environmental
documentation
for
the
drain.
Giving
the
zombie
drain
further
shape
in
reality
is
the
Board's
1995
Water
Quality
Plan
which
states
that
"
Ultimately
it
will
be
necessary
for
in­
basin
management
of
salts
to
be
supplemented
by
the
disposal
of
salts
outside
the
San
Joaquin
Valley...
[
BurRec]
should
reevaluate
alternatives
for
completing
a
drain..."

In
the
meantime,
farmers,
bureaucrats,
and
environmentalists
remain
in
mediation,
trying
to
find
a
solution
to
a
thorny
byzantine
issue
marked
not
only
by
squabbles
over
money
and
political
power,
but
also
by
changing
beliefs
about
humanity's
right
to
produce
radical
changes
in
the
landscape.

"
I
can
understand
these
people,"
says
BurRec's
Turner.
"
They
are
alleging
that
when
they
bought
their
lands
and
developed
their
farming
interests,
they
did
it
with
the
understanding
that
the
land
was
going
to
be
drained.
For
them,
the
Bureau
has
reneged
on
its
promise.
How
are
they
going
to
live
and
make
money?"

According
to
Turner,
the
position
of
the
BurRec
is
that,
although
there
may
have
been
an
original
authorization
for
the
Secretary
of
Interior
to
construct
the
drain,
times
have
changed
since
1960.

"
Costs
are
now
so
high
and
the
environmental
damage
has
intensified,"
says
Turner.
"
I
think
there
are
some
valid
legal
claims
that
are
going
to
have
to
be
resolved,
but
I
feel
confident
that
our
side
will
prevail."

Not
only
have
big
water
projects
fallen
out
of
favor,
but
increased
awareness
of
pollution
problems
in
the
Bay
and
Delta
are
limiting
the
opportunity
for
increases
in
pollution
load.
According
to
Terry
Young
of
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund,
selenium
is
already
accumulating
in
Bay
birds
and
organisms.
"
The
oil
refineries
that
discharge
selenium
into
the
Bay
are
in
the
process
of
ratcheting
down
their
discharges,"
she
says.
"
The
drain
would
add
a
significant
new
load."

Ken
Swanson
of
the
Westlands
Water
District
says
that
drainage
water
can
be
treated
to
remove
selenium
before
it
is
discharged.
The
treated
water
would
be
run
through
a
diffuser
which
would
provide
for
rapid
dilution
in
the
receiving
water
body.
This
is
radically
different
from
the
situation
at
Kesterson,
where
the
water
collected
in
one
area,
says
Swanson.
"
The
drain
envisioned
20
years
ago
was
a
lot
larger
than
is
needed
today,"
he
says.
"
The
drain's
original
design
capacity
was
450
cubic
feet
per
second.
We're
envisioning
a
150
cubic
feet
per
second
drain,
so
the
facilities
we
based
our
estimates
on
are
different
from
what
the
Bureau
based
its
cost
estimates
on."

Swanson
says
the
reduced
figures
reflect
the
adoption
of
water
conservation
measures
by
agricultural
interests
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley.
He
added
that
the
water
district
would
phase
in
drainage,
starting
with
about
8,000
acre
feet
annually
and
building
to
60,000
acre
feet
per
year
over
the
next
century.

"
Retiring
land
really
isn't
an
alternative
unless
someone
wants
to
come
in
and
buy
land
from
these
guys
at
market
value,"
Swanson
says.
"
That
kind
of
money
isn't
there."

Terry
Young
disagrees.
Pilot
projects
based
on
the
1990
report,
A
Management
Plan
for
Agricultural
Subsurface
Drainage
and
Related
Problems
on
the
Westside
San
Joaquin
Valley,
have
shown
that
it
is
feasible
to
deal
with
the
valley's
drainage
problems
without
adding
to
the
Bay's
pollutant
load,
says
Young.
The
real
clash
is
between
the
old
system
of
subsidized
agriculture
that
often
ignored
the
realities
of
the
arid
American
West
and
a
new
environmental
ethic
spurred
by
budget
constraints.
Even
proponents
admit
that
nobody
really
knows
what
the
San
Luis
Drain
and
its
associated
water
treatment
facilities
would
cost
in
the
long
run.
But
Young
says
she
is
convinced
that
the
major
cost
will
be
borne
not
by
San
Joaquin
Valley
farmers,
but
by
U.
S.
taxpayers.

"
The
drain
is
a
whole
lot
less
expensive
for
them
than
treating
their
own
pollution
or
accomplishing
enough
source
reduction,
says
Young.
"
It
would
be
paid
for
the
same
way
the
rest
of
the
San
Luis
Project
and
aqueduct
was
paid
for.
In
a
nutshell,
the
farmers
ultimately
have
to
repay
the
capital
expense,
but
they
get
a
very
low
interest
rate
and
such
a
long
amount
of
time
to
repay
that
the
amount
shrinks
over
time.
Basically,
its
a
huge
subsidy."

Subsidy
or
not,
public
acceptance
remains
a
major
hurdle
for
the
ghost
drain
to
transcend
in
its
quest
for
new
life,
according
to
the
State
Board's
Jerry
Johns.
"
The
only
way
people
will
allow
the
drain
in
their
backyard
is
if
we
have
done
absolutely
everything
else
we
can
to
manage
salts
and
the
discharge
is
shown
to
be
safe,"
he
says.

Contact:
Swanson
(
209)
224­
1523;
Turner
(
916)
979­
2155;
Young
(
510658­
8008
SZ
Editors
Note:
In
related
news,
the
Central
Valley
Regional
Board
approved
a
basin
plan
amendment
this
May
which
adopts
a
5
ppb
selenium
objective
(
over
a
four­
day
average)
for
the
San
Joaquin
River.

CAPITAL
BEAT:
KINDER,
GENTLER
SPECIES
ACT
?

No
issue
is
a
more
sensitive
barometer
of
environmental
politics
than
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA).
As
the
104thCongress
draws
to
its
rocky
close,
it
now
looks
as
if
ESA
reauthorization
will
be
delayed
once
again.
But
the
battle
lines
are
being
drawn
now,
with
Republicans
drafting
what
is
being
called
a
more
centrist
ESA
that
nonetheless
could
have
drastic
consequences
for
the
Bay
Delta
Accord.

At
the
same
time,
a
tough
cadre
of
grassroots
and
Washington,
D.
C.
environmentalists
are
recovering
from
last
year's
onslaughts
and
rallying
around
a
new
and
stronger
version
of
the
act.
By
the
end
of
May,
the
politics
of
endangered
species
had
moved
considerably
from
the
hot
seat
they
occupied
at
the
beginning
of
the
session
when
Alaska
Congressman
Don
Young
pledged
to
make
sweeping
changes
in
the
law.
Most
people
expected
a
tougher
fight
after
the
momentum
gained
when
Young's
committee
held
a
series
of
controversial
briefings
around
the
country.

Ignoring
criticisms
that
the
briefings
were
stacked
with
pro­
development
forces,
Young
and
California
Congressman
Richard
Pembro
introduced
a
bill
that
would
have
made
the
goal
of
species
recovery
optional
and
established
takings
compensation.

After
the
initial
brouhaha,
the
Young­
Pembro
bill
went
nowhere.
House
Speaker
Newt
Gingrich
reportedly
played
a
crucial
role
in
halting
the
action.
If
Gingrich
had
not
intervened,
it's
not
clear
whether
the
environmental
community
would
have
had
the
clout
to
stop
Young's
efforts.

The
lead
group
on
the
issue
was
the
Endangered
Species
Coalition,
an
alliance
of
the
so­
called
"
Big
10"
green
groups
and
others.
The
coalition
fell
prey
to
the
classic
conflict
between
uncompromising
grassroots
activists
and
inside­
the­
Beltway
pros
who
believe
they
have
a
hammerlock
on
the
art
of
the
possible.
After
months
of
infighting,
the
coalition
went
into
hibernation
in
early
winter.

In
early
1996,
the
Endangered
Species
Coalition
regained
momentum.
But
a
splinter
group
of
high­
level
environmentalists,
including
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund's
Michael
Bean
and
the
Nature
Conservancy's
John
Sawhill,
entered
into
secret
negotiation
with
the
Republican
majority
aimed,
reportedly,
at
developing
a
kinder,
gentler
ESA
­
one
with
more
carrots
and
fewer
sticks.
One
veteran
environmental
lobbyist
thinks
the
Bean
group
didn't
necessarily
expect
a
bill
to
emerge
out
of
the
negotiations,
but
they
wanted
to
be
regarded
as
open
to
dealing
with
Republicans
in
case
Democrats
failed
to
regain
control
of
Congress
in
November.

Once
the
negotiations
came
to
light
in
April,
coalition
members
felt
free
to
adopt
the
strategy
they
had
believed
in
all
along.
They
released
a
draft
of
a
stronger
ESA
called
the
Endangered
Natural
Heritage
Act
(
ENHA).
Written
over
the
winter
by
representatives
of
national
environmental
organizations
and
grassroots
activists,
this
new
act
has
been
endorsed
by
160
organizations
nationwide.

"
We
sat
down
with
activists
who
have
been
implementing
the
law
for
years
and
years
and
said
where
are
the
loopholes?"
says
Kieran
Suckling
of
the
Southwest
Center
for
Biological
Diversity.

Suellen
Lowry
of
the
Sierra
Club
Legal
Defense
Fund
says
the
ENHA
clarifies
the
current
law
by
establishing
that
recovery
is
the
goal
of
endangered
species
preservation.
In
past
years,
developers
have
argued
that
projects
which
would
not
impact
current
population
levels
of
an
endangered
species
are
acceptable.
Conservation
biologists,
of
course,
don't
agree
­
stressing
the
importance
for
establishing
viable
populations
of
species.
ENHA
would
also
make
implementation
plans
mandatory,
include
species
listed
before
1978
in
critical
habitat
protection,
and
eliminate
the
60­
day
notice
for
lawsuits
on
ESA
implementation.

Neither
ENHA
nor
the
compromise
Republican
bill
are
expected
to
hit
the
floor
this
session.
Moderate
Republicans
were
reportedly
not
able
to
convince
Young
and
Pembro
to
support
the
compromise
bill
negotiated
by
EDF's
Bean
and
others.
But
even
if
it
isn't
radical
enough
to
satisfy
Pombro
and
Young,
the
compromise
being
circulated
from
the
office
of
Congressman
Jim
Saxton
is
already
worrying
California
resource
managers.
There's
a
good
possibility
that
an
obscure,
densely
worded
provision
could
exempt
existing
water
projects
from
ESA
consultation.

The
importance
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act
in
managing
the
Bay
and
Delta
cannot
be
overestimated,
says
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife's
Mike
Thabault.
Not
only
was
a
lawsuit
over
the
act
responsible
for
the
Bay­
Delta
Accord
­
a
temporary
truce
in
the
water
wars
­
but
as
the
various
aspects
of
the
accord
are
implemented,
they
must
go
through
the
ESA
process.
Essentially,
the
ESA
is
a
stick
that
is
used
intermittently
to
help
move
ecosystem
management
efforts
forward,
according
to
Thabault.
If
water
projects
were
exempted
from
the
species
act,
there
would
be
little
incentive
for
all
parties
to
stay
on
board.

There's
no
question
that
whatever
happens
with
the
act,
the
Bay
Area
will
be
among
the
most
affected
places
in
the
country.
The
future
of
Delta
smelt
and
winter
run
Chinook
salmon
may
be
decided
in
a
tangle
of
Republican
re­
election
efforts
and
rifts
between
grassroots
and
Washington,
D.
C.
environmentalists
­
many
of
whom
may
not
even
know
that
a
multi­
million
dollar
effort
at
ecosystem
management
is
in
their
hands.

SZ
COOPERATIVE
EFFORTS
TO
PROTECT
AND
RESTORE
THE
WETLANDS
OF
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY
Wetlands
and
riparian
habitat
play
a
vital
role
in
maintaining
a
healthy
ecosystem
because
of
their
function
in
buffering
the
impact
of
floodwaters,
cleansing
pollutants
from
runoff,
recharging
overdrawn
water
supplies
and
providing
critical
habitat
for
waterfowl
and
hundreds
of
fish
and
wildlife
species,
not
to
mention
many
endangered
flora
and
fauna.
Shoreline
and
streamside
wetlands
also
provide
recreational
opportunities
and
benefits
to
Bay
Area
residents
and
visitors.
The
tremendous
loss
of
wetlands
habitat
throughout
the
San
Francisco
Bay­
Delta
region
has
resulted
in
substantial
regulatory
protections,
as
well
as
numerous
cooperative
initiatives
to
further
enhance
wetlands
on
a
regional
scale.
The
purpose
of
this
fact
sheet
is
to
give
an
overview
of
the
region's
six
major
cooperative
initiatives,
highlight
how
they
interact
with
and
complement
one
another,
and
describe
opportunities
for
public
involvement.

SIX
REGIONAL
EFFORTS
There
are
six
major
wetlands
protection
and
enhancement
efforts
in
the
S.
F.
Bay­
Delta
region,
three
with
a
regionwide
focus
and
three
with
a
North
Bay
focus.
The
North
Bay
focus
has
evolved
because
government,
activists
and
scientists
all
agree
that
the
North
Bay
rim
­
with
its
over
40,000
acres
of
historic
but
now
diked
tidal
wetlands
­
offers
the
most
promising
opportunity
for
large
scale
wetland
restoration
in
the
greater
Bay
Area.

Each
of
the
six
initiatives
implements
the
following
important
state
and
regional
wetlands
policies
and
plans:
 
California
Wetlands
Conservation
Policy,
adopted
by
the
Governor
of
California
on
August
23,
1993.
The
goals
of
this
policy
include
ensuring
no
overall
net
loss
and
a
long­
term
net
gain
in
the
quantity,
quality,
and
permanence
of
wetlands;
reducing
procedural
complexity
in
the
administration
of
wetlands
conservation
programs;
and
encouraging
partnerships
and
landowner
incentives
as
a
means
to
improve
wetlands
protection.

 
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
for
the
Bay
and
Delta
(
CCMP),
a
consensus
plan
developed
by
100
public
and
private
interests
and
signed
by
the
governor
of
California
and
the
administrator
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
in
1993
(
see
inside).
The
CCMP
features
147
actions
designed
to
protect
and
restore
the
S.
F.
Estuary,
including
the
creation
of
wetland
ecosystem
goals
and
a
regional
wetlands
management
plan,
and
the
establishment
of
geographically­
focused
cooperative
efforts
to
protect
wetlands.

Other
things
these
six
efforts
have
in
common:

 
Multi­
party
approach
­
all
involve
some
kind
of
cooperative,
public­
private,
partnership
style
approach
rather
than
the
more
conventional
single
agency
or
group
initiative.
 
Fill
gaps
in
existing
wetland
management
or
regulatory
programs.
 
Larger
scope
than
a
single
wildlife
refuge
or
shoreline
park.

Representatives
from
all
six
efforts
meet
at
least
twice
a
year
to
improve
coordination.

~
MAJOR
FOCUS
OF
SIX
EFFORTS
~

Regionwide
Scope
San
Francisco
Estuary
Project
CCMP
Major
Focus
Promoting
existing
consensus
on
how
wetlands
should
be
protected,
regulated
and
restored
throughout
the
S.
F.
Bay­
Delta
Estuary
region.

Products
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
for
the
Bay
and
Delta
(
completed
1993)
Regional
Wetlands
Management
Plan
for
the
Bay
and
Delta
(
ongoing)

Geographic
Scope
The
12­
county
region
of
the
San
Francisco
Bay/
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
River
Delta
Estuary.

Overview
In
response
to
the
growing
public
concern
over
the
decline
in
the
nation's
estuaries,
the
United
States
Congress
created
the
National
Estuary
Program
and
established
the
San
Francisco
Estuary
Project
(
SFEP).
After
a
concerted
collaborative
effort
of
over
100
participants
representing
a
wide
variety
of
public
and
private
interests,
the
SFEP
produced
the
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
CCMP)
for
the
San
Francisco
Estuary
in
June
1993.

The
CCMP
is
the
only
existing,
consensus
based,
coordinated
and
comprehensive
strategy
to
protect
the
San
Francisco
Bay­
Delta
Estuary.
It
lays
out
almost
150
actions
related
to
dredging,
land
use,
pollution,
water
use,
fish,
wildlife
and
wetlands.

For
wetlands,
CCMP
developers
agreed
on
twelve
major
actions
including
the
creation
of
a
Regional
Wetlands
Management
Plan.
According
to
the
CCMP,
this
plan
would
describe
regulatory
and
non­
regulatory
approaches
to
wetlands
protection
and
consist
of
measures
to:
improve
the
wetland
regulatory
system;
protect
existing
wetlands
using
the
current,
new
and
expanded
programs
of
wetland
acquisition,
easement
agreements
and
cooperative
management
systems;
and
expand
the
wetland
resource
base
by
restoring,
enhancing
and
creating
wetlands.

Opportunities
for
Involvement
Three
geographically­
based
subcommittees
­
North
Bay,
South
Bay
and
Delta
­
meet
regularly
to
facilitate
the
CCMP's
implementation.
Subcommittee
meetings
open
to
the
public.
Copies
of
the
CCMP
are
available
for
review.

Bay
Area
Leads
Association
of
Bay
Area
Governments,
S.
F.
Bay
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
and
S.
F.
Estuary
Project.
Others:
CCMP
signed
by
12
federal
and
state
government
agencies,
and
30
municipalities,
environmentalists,
business
groups,
boaters,
fisherpeople,
farmers
and
water
users.

Contact
Marcia
Brockbank,
S.
F.
Estuary
Project,
(
510)
286­
0780
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
Wetlands
Ecosystem
Goals
Project
Major
Focus
Identifying
the
types,
amounts,
and
distribution
of
wetlands
and
related
habitats
needed
to
sustain
diverse
and
healthy
wetland
plant
and
animal
communities
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area.

Products
A
biological
foundation
for
all
Bay
wetlands
protection
programs
and
the
regional
wetlands
management
plan.

Geographic
Scope
San
Francisco
Bay
baylands,
including
existing
and
historic
wetlands
ranging
from
the
South
Bay
to
Suisun
Bay.
Eventual
expansion
planned
to
include
stream
habitats,
riparian
corridors
and
wetlands
throughout
Bay
Area
watersheds.

Overview
The
goals
project,
begun
in
1994,
is
using
all
available
scientific
knowledge
to
identify
the
types,
amounts,
and
distribution
of
wetlands
and
related
habitats
needed
to
sustain
wetland
plant
and
animal
communities
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area.
Such
goals
are
recognized
by
both
the
CCMP
and
the
Governor's
Wetlands
Policy
as
a
necessary
biological
foundation
for
a
Regional
Wetlands
Management
Plan.
The
goals,
scheduled
for
completion
by
spring
1997,
will
also
offer
biologically­
sound
guidance
for
the
region's
numerous
regulatory
and
non­
regulatory
wetland
protection
programs,
including
those
described
in
these
pages.
Entities
which
should
find
the
goals
useful
include
city
and
county
planning
departments
that
wish
to
better
protect
wetlands
through
zoning;
open
space,
park
and
resource
conservation
districts
interested
in
undertaking
wetlands
restoration
or
enhancement
projects;
private
landowners
seeking
to
improve
wetlands
on
their
properties;
and
state
and
federal
resource
agencies
involved
in
wetlands
regulation
or
mandates
to
protect
fish
and
wildlife
and
their
supporting
wetland
habitats.

Participants
Coastal
Conservancy,
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
California
Department
of
Water
Resources,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
S.
F.
Bay
Conservation
and
Development
Commission,
S.
F.
Bay
Joint
Venture,
S.
F.
Bay
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
S.
F.
Estuary
Institute,
S.
F.
Estuary
Project,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.

Opportunities
for
Involvement
Public
meetings
are
held
to
provide
information
about
the
project
and
to
solicit
comment
and
feedback.
For
a
current
schedule,
call
(
510)
286­
1221.

Contact
Peggy
Olofson,
San
Francisco
Bay
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
(
510)
286­
0427
San
Francisco
Bay
Joint
Venture
Major
Focus
Completing
on­
the­
ground
projects
involving
the
acquisition,
restoration
or
enhancement
of
wetlands
by
leveraging
existing
public
and
private
resources,
developing
new
funding
sources
and
creating
public­
private
partnerships.

Products
An
Implementation
Strategy
establishing
specific
goals
and
strategies
for
wetland
and
riparian
habitat
acquisition,
protection
and
restoration.
Geographic
Scope
The
San
Francisco
Bay
Watershed
(
exclusive
of
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
River
Delta
and
Suisun
Marsh
and
inclusive
of
the
San
Mateo
Coast),
which
includes
all
or
part
of
the
nine
Bay
Area
counties.

Overview
The
San
Francisco
Bay
Joint
Venture,
launched
in
1995,
is
a
partnership
between
public
agencies,
environmental
organizations,
hunting
and
fishing
groups,
the
business
community,
local
government
and
landowners
working
cooperatively
to
protect,
restore,
increase
and
enhance
all
types
of
wetlands,
riparian
habitat
and
associated
uplands
throughout
the
San
Francisco
Bay
watershed.
Using
a
non­
regulatory
approach
and
an
ecosystem
perspective,
the
Joint
Venture
will
focus
on
completing
on­
the­
ground
habitat
projects
by
leveraging
existing
resources,
developing
new
funding
sources
and
creating
unique
partnerships.
Joint
Venture
partners
will
use
a
range
of
wetlands
protection
strategies
including
acquiring
fee
or
conservation
easement
interests
in
land
from
willing
sellers,
developing
wetlands
management
incentive
programs,
offering
wetlands
enhancement
cost­
sharing
programs,
and
providing
technical
assistance
for
landowners
interested
in
wetlands
restoration.
Start­
up
funds
for
the
venture
were
provided
by
the
Coastal
Conservancy
and
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

Participants
Alameda
County
Flood
Control
District,
Bay
Area
Watershed
Network,
Bay
Planning
Coalition,
Coastal
Conservancy,
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
California
Waterfowl
Association,
City
of
San
Jose,
Ducks
Unlimited,
East
Bay
Regional
Parks
District,
Mosquito
Abatement
Districts
(
Alameda
and
Contra
Costa),
Napa
County
Resource
Conservation
District,
National
Audubon
Society
(
and
Golden
Gate,
Napa­
Solano,
Marin
and
Mt
Diablo
chapters),
National
Estuarine
Research
Reserve,
National
Park
Service,
Pacific
Gas
and
Electric
Company,
S.
F.
Bay
Conservation
and
Development
Commission,
S.
F.
Bay
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
S.
F.
Estuary
Project,
San
Mateo
County
Department
of
Environmental
Services,
Save
S.
F.
Bay
Association,
Sierra
Club,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.

Opportunities
for
Involvement
Management
Board
meetings
open
to
the
public.

Contact
Nancy
Schaefer,
San
Francisco
Bay
Joint
Venture,
(
510)
286­
6767
~
MAJOR
FOCUS
OF
SIX
EFFORTS
~

North
Bay
Scope
North
Bay
Forum
Major
Focus
Coordinating
the
North
Bay
wetland
and
watershed
resource
management
and
regulatory
activities
of
12
government
agencies
­
troubleshooting
regulatory
conflicts,
streamlining
wetland
permit
reviews,
and
helping
landowners
and
local
government
solve
problems.

Products
Regular
problem­
solving
and
information
sharing
meetings.
Technical
and
stewardship
workshops
for
landowners
and
government.

Geographic
Scope
North
Bay
rim
from
Carquinez
Strait
in
the
east
to
Gallinas
Creek
in
Marin
County,
including
the
land
in
between
within
the
watersheds
of
the
Petaluma
and
Napa
Rivers.

Overview
This
program
began
in
1992
as
a
cooperative
effort
among
12
signatory
agencies
to
coordinate
resource
management
activities
in
the
North
Bay
called
the
North
Bay
Initiative.
Since
then,
it
has
worked
with
landowners
and
local
governments
using
a
non­
regulatory
approach
to
achieve
environmental
restoration,
preserve
agriculture,
share
information
and
data,
and
create
public/
private
partnerships
for
resource
protection.
In
1995,
the
Initiative
changed
its
name
to
the
North
Bay
Forum
to
reflect
the
addition
of
new
functions
such
as
getting
more
landowner
involvement
and
providing
a
means
of
sharing
information
on
new
wetland
projects
and
watershed
management
activities.

Participants
Lead:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Signatory
Agencies:
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Napa
and
Southern
Sonoma
County
Resource
Conservation
Districts,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service,
S.
F.
Bay
Conservation
and
Development
Commission,
Coastal
Conservancy,
State
Department
of
Water
Resources,
State
Lands
Commission,
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Wildlife
Conservation
Board.
Others:
Partnership
for
San
Pablo
Baylands,
S.
F.
Bay
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
and
the
public.

Opportunities
for
Involvement
Meetings
held
every
other
month
with
the
CCMP
North
Bay
Geographic
Subcommittee.
Open
to
public.

Contact
Paul
Jones,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
(
415)
744­
1976.

North
Bay
Wetlands
Protection
Program
Major
Focus
Working
with
local
government
to
develop
a
a
comprehensive
North
Bay
Wetlands
Protection
Plan
to
guide
land
use
decisionmaking.

Products
North
Bay
Wetlands
Protection
Plan
(
scheduled
for
completion
in
1997).
North
Bay
Land
Use
and
Public
Ownership
Report
(
completed
May
'
96)
North
Bay
Wetlands
Background
Report
(
scheduled
for
completion
1996).

Geographic
Scope
North
Bay
rim,
including
Marin,
Sonoma,
Napa
and
Solano
Counties
from
Gallinas
Creek
to
the
Carquinez
Strait.
The
planning
area
is
bounded
by
the
Bay
on
the
south,
Highway
101
on
the
west,
Route
116
and
12
on
the
north
and
Route
29
on
the
east
encompassing
the
lower
reaches
of
the
San
Pablo
Bay
watershed.

Overview
The
North
Bay
Wetlands
Protection
Program
is
a
voluntary
partnership
between
the
S.
F.
Bay
Conservation
and
Development
Commission
and
eight
local
governments
in
the
North
Bay.
The
program
centers
on
land
use
planning
and
seeks
to
provide
local
government
with
the
tools
and
information
needed
to
ensure
the
protection,
enhancement
and
restoration
of
North
Bay
wetlands,
while
allowing
uses
that
are
consistent
with
wetland
values
and
functions
to
continue
and
guiding
other
incompatible
uses
to
other
appropriate
locations.
Additionally,
the
program
seeks
to
achieve
long­
term
gains
in
wetland
acreage
and
establish
clear
and
consistent
criteria
for
the
evaluation
of
proposed
development
projects
that
may
impact
wetland
and
riparian
areas.
Once
complete,
the
wetlands
protection
plan
will
also
provide
greater
predictability
regardingthe
kinds
of
projects
and
activities
that
can
occur
in
the
planning
area.
Appropriate
elements
of
the
Protection
Plan
will
be
incorporated
into
local
government
general
plans
and
enforceable
regulations.

Participants
Lead:
S.
F.
Bay
Conservation
and
Development
Commission
Others:
Marin,
Sonoma,
Napa
and
Solano
Counties
and
the
Cities
of
San
Rafael,
Novato,
American
Canyon
and
Vallejo.

Opportunities
for
Involvement
Public
notified
and
invited
to
review
staff
planning
background
reports
and
to
participate
in
regular
meetings
of
the
Steering
Committee.

Contact
Jeff
Blanchfield,
S.
F.
Bay
Conservation
and
Development
Commission
(
415)
557­
3686
Partnership
for
the
San
Pablo
Baylands
Major
Focus
Developing
a
non­
regulatory
wetland
restoration,
enhancement
and
management
plan
for
the
North
Bay
­
primarily
for
private
landowners
­
and
promoting
grassroots
support
for
protection
of
the
San
Pablo
baylands.
Products
Grassroots­
based
wetland
restoration,
enhancement
and
management
plan
for
San
Pablo
baylands.
Geographic
Scope
North
Bay
rim,
including
portions
of
Marin,
Sonoma,
Napa
and
Solano
Counties
bordering
San
Pablo
Bay.

Overview
Save
San
Francisco
Bay
Association
launched
the
Partnership
for
the
San
Pablo
Baylands
in
1995
to
protect,
enhance
and
restore
the
ecologically
and
culturally
valuable
baylands
along
San
Pablo
Bay.
The
Partnership
is
a
collaborative
effort
among
those
who
live
and
work
in
the
Baylands,
along
with
interested
citizens
and
government
agencies,
to
draft,
adopt
and
implement
a
wetland
restoration,
enhancement
and
management
plan.
The
plan
will
focus
on
integrating
the
management
of
wetland
resources
with
the
management
of
existing
land
uses
such
as
agriculture,
and
on
getting
private
landowners
involved
in
protecting
wildlife
habitat.
The
Partnership's
three
main
objectives
are
to
galvanize
grassroots
support
for
Baylands
protection
by
undertaking
a
public
education
campaign,
to
build
a
partnership
among
landowners,
citizens
and
government
agencies
to
develop
the
plan
mentioned
above,
and
to
establish
an
ongoing
program
to
ensure
plan
implementation.

Participants
Lead:
Save
San
Francisco
Bay
Association
Others:
Napa
County
and
Southern
Sonoma
County
Resource
Conservation
Districts,
S.
F.
Bay
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
local
government
and
landowners.

Opportunities
for
Involvement
Several
public
events
will
be
held
to
highlight
the
importance
of
the
baylands.
Call
for
a
schedule.

Contact
Marc
Holmes,
Save
San
Francisco
Bay
Association,
(
707)
644­
1752
~
OTHER
REGIONAL
PROGRAMS
RELATED
TO
WETLANDS~

Bay
Area
Wetlands
Planning
Group
The
California
Resources
Agency
convenes
this
ad­
hoc
interagency
group
to
address
policy
issues,
assist
with
planning
efforts
and
promote
regulatory
efficiency.
Both
state
and
federal
resource
and
regulatory
agencies
participate.
For
more
information,
contact
Craig
Denisoff
(
916)
654­
2753.

Bay
Area
Regulatory
Pilot
Project
The
S.
F.
Bay
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
in
cooperation
with
the
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
and
the
S.
F.
Bay
Conservation
and
Development
Commission
(
BCDC)
has
undertaken
this
Pilot
Project
to
streamline
the
permitting
process
for
projects
impacting
wetlands
while
strengthening
wetlands
management
and
protection.
The
primary
objectives
are:
assessing
the
feasibility
of
state
assumption
of
Section
404
permitting
from
the
federal
government;
evaluating
the
potential
consolidation
of
Section
404,
401
and
BCDC
permits;
and
developing
an
improved
permitting
process
that
will
provide
better
service
to
applicants.

For
more
information,
contact
Michael
Carlin
(
510)
286­
1325.

San
Francisco
Bay
Water
Quality
Control
Plan
The
Basin
Plan
is
the
master
policy
document
of
the
S.
F.
Bay
Regional
Water
Quality
ControlBoard,
providing
the
legal,
technical
and
programmatic
bases
of
water
quality
regulation
in
the
region.
A
1995
Basin
Plan
update
included
several
improvements
to
wetlands
protection,
many
of
which
were
recommended
in
the
CCMP.
Among
the
recent
additions
to
the
Basin
Plan
are
a
"
no
net
loss"
policy,
a
wetlands
alteration
policy
addressing
wetlands
fill
and
hydrologic
modification,
clarification
of
wetlands
as
"
waters
of
the
state,"
a
mitigation
policy,
and
a
policy
on
the
use
of
dredged
material
to
restore
wetlands.
The
Regional
Board
continues
to
explore
additional
ways
to
improve
wetlands
protection
and
management.

For
more
information,
contact
Peggy
Olofson
(
510)
286­
0427.

Long
Term
Management
Strategy
for
Dredged
Material
The
LTMS
was
initiated
in
1990
to
address
the
disposal
of
dredged
materials
from
ports
and
channels
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area.
This
public/
private
partnership
brings
20
agencies
and
47
special
interests
­
including
fishing
and
navigation
groups,
environmental
organizations
and
the
public
­
together
to
develop
a
regionally
acceptable
strategy
for
managing
the
Bay
Area's
dredging
and
disposal
needs
over
the
next
50
years.
The
specific
goals
of
LTMS
are:
to
conduct
necessary
dredging
and
dredged
material
disposal
in
an
environmentally
sound
and
economically
prudent
manner;
to
eliminate
unnecessary
dredging;
to
maximize
beneficial
reuse
of
dredged
material;
and
to
develop
a
coordinated
permit
review
process
for
dredging
projects.
Maximizing
the
beneficial
reuse
of
dredged
material
may
include
significant
new
efforts
to
use
dredged
material
for
wetland
enhancement
and
restoration.

For
more
information
on
the
LTMS
beneficial
reuse
effort
contact
Steve
Goldbeck
(
415)
557­
3686.

CALFED
Bay­
Delta
Program
In
1994,
the
state
and
federal
governments
signed
the
Bay­
Delta
Accord
and
launched
CALFED,
a
cooperative
program
aimed
at
developing
a
long­
term
solution
to
the
conflicts
over
the
competing
uses
of
Delta
waters.
This
partnership
of
ten
state
and
federal
agencies
has
developed
a
series
of
options
designed
to
improve
ecosystem
quality,
water
supply
reliability,
water
quality
and
system
vulnerability
in
the
S.
F.
Bay­
Delta
Estuary.
All
of
the
options
include
some
degree
of
wetland
protection,
restoration
or
enhancement.
Proposed
options
will
be
narrowed
through
extensive
review,
public
input
and
environmental
impact
evaluation.
For
more
information,
call
(
916)
657­
9780.

END
jmc
06/
16/
98