A GREENER BLUE?Conference wrapup . . . . . . . . .3

POLLUTIONConference, cont’d . . . . . . . . . .6

RESTORATIONConference, cont’d . . . . . . . . . .8

LAND USEConference, cont’d . . . . . . . . . .9

LADY LINCHPINRETIRES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

INSIDE

SOILEDShortly before 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday,

November 7, the cargo ship Cosco Busan—enroute to South Korea from the Port of Oakland—ran into a support post for the Bay Bridge,gashing its fuel tank and sending 58,000 gallonsof oil into San Francisco Bay. Initial reports by theshipping company put the size of the spill at 400gallons. Twelve hours later, local officials learnedthe results of an initial investigation by state andfederal agencies—that the spill was over 100times the size first reported.

When those first oily drops hit the water, nobooms were in place around the ship. So swirlingBay currents spread the oil far and wide—hittingshorelines from San Francisco to Berkeley toRichmond to Marin—affecting birds, fish andother wildlife throughout the Bay and as far outas the Farallons.

The spill couldn’t have come at a worse time:thousands of migratory birds spend their wintermonths in the Estuary. Three weeks after the spill,the official tally of oiled birds (dead and alive)totaled close to 3,000, with potential bird mortal-ity as high as 22,000 (see sidebar). More thanhalf of the birds accounted for died from expo-sure to the oil.

Pictures of oiled ducks and other birdsappeared on page 1 of local papers, and theseimages drove many people, like Nancy Powell ofAlbany, to action. She decided on November 9—a Friday—to walk north along the Bay fromEmeryville to see if there was oil to clean or birdsto save. She found six oiled birds in Berkeley,across from Shorebird Park. No one was tendingto them, so she stood there to protect them.While she stood by the birds, more concernedpeople showed up, including a kayaker who ranup from the water carrying an oiled bird. Nearby,officials were busy discussing the proper way towear a Hazmat suit. Powell noticed that autho-rized bird capture teams that were hastily beingassembled (consisting of state and federalemployees) were poorly equipped. “They had afew trainees, no nets. No towels to put in boxes

to take the birds anywhere,” says Powell. “Theyborrowed nets from the Shorebird Nature Center,and they were able to catch a couple of birds onthat beach.”

Powell had seen a spill on the Bay ten yearsago, and she had helped cleaning oiled birds. Soshe had experience, and serendipitously, shefound other would-be volunteers that morning atShorebird Park with backgrounds in wildlife res-cue and a strong desire to do something. Thevolunteers bought over $500 worth of fishingnets and towels from local stores, and spent theday helping rescue birds in Berkeley. The groupalso recruited drivers to take birds to the Cordeliawildlife center. Later, the unofficial group (warnedthat they could be arrested) moved to Albany,where they rescued birds and transported birdsbeing caught by homeless people.

When the group arrived at Hoffman Marsh onthe stretch of shoreline curving between PointIsabelle and the Richmond Inner Harbor the thirdday following the spill, they found oiled birds onthe rocks and beaches being chased by dogs andtheir owners, but no one taking charge of the sit-uation—not even to do crowd control.

“A Richmond fire truck was there, and he said,‘Yeah, I really think this trail should be closed off,but I don’t have the authority to do it,’” saidPowell, who, along with other members of hergroup, again took matters into their own hands.They organized a bird-rescue network with peo-ple handling tasks such as closing off theshoreline, taking reports of oiled birds along theshore, and catching and transporting birds. Overthe course of a week, says Powell, her group res-cued over 50 birds.

“The person running the Oiled Wildlife CareNetwork command center kept trying to tell me,‘You know, there is unauthorized collection ofbirds going on,’” explains an incredulous Powell.“And the message I kept sending back was that‘you get authorized people out here to cover thiswaterfront, and we are gone immediately.’”

Powell and others working the Richmondshoreline those first days after the spill say therewere a few authorized people on the waterfrontin Richmond—but only one or two people in atruck with no cleanup—or bird capture—equip-

D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 7V O L U M E 1 6 , N O . 6

Y O U R I N D E P E N D E N T S O U R C E F O R B A Y - D E L T A N E W S & V I E W STHE PRICE OF OILThe Cosco Busan

spill claimed the livesof at least 45 speciesof birds, ranging fromthe pelagic northernfulmar and parasiticjaeger to the shore-bound fox sparrow.Some were hit harderthan others. First

impressions that most ofthe oiled birds were surf scoters are sup-ported by preliminary data from theInternational Bird Rescue Research Center.As of November 20, according to UC Davisspokesperson Sylvia Wright, more thantwice as many surf scoters had beenbrought in alive as the next most frequentspecies, the western grebe. The scoters alsoheaded the list of species found dead, fol-lowed again by western grebe.

The top ten species found alive alsoincluded eared, horned, and Clark’s grebes,greater and lesser scaup, and ruddy duck,common loon, and common murre. Allthese birds forage by diving from the sur-face of the water (grebes, cormorants, andmurres are fish-eaters, while the three duckseat benthic mollusks and other aquaticinvertebrates.) Other foraging guilds—forexample, plunge-divers like terns and peli-cans—appear to have been less affected.The main exceptions: western gulls andnorthern fulmars, significant numbers ofwhich were found dead.

The surf scoter is one of the most abun-dant birds in San Francisco Bay in fall andwinter; over 75% of the North Americanpopulation congregates here. But localAudubon Society Christmas Bird Countsreport higher totals for greater scaup thanfor scoter, along with substantial numbersfor ruddy duck and bufflehead. Locationmay account for some apparent patterns inthe spill. Southern Marin had the highestCBC numbers for western grebe, whichranked second to surf scoter among spillvictims; eared grebes, concentrated in theSouth Bay, had fewer spill casualties.

continued page 2

continued page 2

Photo by Chris Clarke

THE PRICE OF OIL, CONTINUED

SOILED, CONTINUED

DEC2007

ment. In some cases, agency represen-tatives were lost and neededdirections—and offered little in the wayof help. Late Saturday afternoon, atruck of workers from the Contra CostaHazardous Materials Program came ontheir own authority to clean the countybeaches and boom off the shoreline.

“They are real heroes in my book,”says Powell. “Because the Coast Guardapparently told all of the local agenciesto wait for direction from them andContra Costa said, ‘Nope.’”

But because this was the third dayafter the spill, some of the work of thecounty hazardous materials workershad little effect—booms they were ableto put into the Bay actually hemmed in the oilalong the shoreline. Powell and others say theseworkers were frustrated at not hearing soonerabout the extent of the spill. And they were ham-strung by a lack of proper equipment. “Theyactually wanted to boom off the Richmondmarsh, but they couldn’t get a boat,” says Powell.

The California Office of Oil Spill Prevention andResponse (“OSPR”)—under the aegis of Cal Fish& Game—created a map of the Bay showing theareas hardest hit by the spill. Richmond, which, at32 miles of shoreline, is the city with the longestcoastline on San Francisco Bay, is identified on themap as among those areas. Hot spots includedBrooks Island, home to a bird sanctuary, andBarbara and Jay Vincent Park, one of the locationswhere Powell and her fellow volunteers worked.With the exception of two bird capturers fromInternational Bird Rescue who showed up onMonday and her grassroots group, says Powell,no one from state or federal agencies rescuedbirds in Richmond that first weekend.

The experiences of Powell and the others inRichmond is a microcosm of the situation else-where. The Environmental Water Caucus’ DavidNesmith reported a similar fiasco along theOakland shoreline. “It’s a scandal to have all ofthis human infrastructure potential [volunteers]out there and to not have used it. I think OSPRcompletely screwed up on this.” Local officialsincluding Berkeley Assemblywoman Loni Hancockalso wanted to know why events unfolded theway they did; Hancock convened the first hearinglooking into the spill in Emeryville on November15, nine days after the spill.

Present at this hearing was Greg Hurner,deputy director of OSPR. He brought a four-inchthick binder and recited chapter and verse from itregarding the procedures followed by the agency,the gallons of oil recovered, the numbers of skim-mers on the Bay, and even the amount of boomdeployed. Still, none of that placated Hancock.What she wanted was accountability.

“So my question to you, really, would be ... inyour best professional judgment, what wentwrong?” Hurner replied, “I’m not saying that any-thing went wrong.”

Members of the packed audience gasped andshook their heads in dismay at his response.Hurner was not alone in this assessment. Fourdays later, at a hearing in San Francisco’s Presidio,a U.S. Congressional delegation that includedHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) andCongressman George Miller (D-Martinez), U.S.Coast Guard Rear Admiral Craig Bone deemed thecleanup effort, “one of the most successfulcleanups I’ve ever experienced.” Sylvia Wright,with the Oiled Wildlife Care Network at UC Davis,said that “While questions remain to be answeredabout the spill response itself, there is no doubtthat the wildlife rescue effort was as successful as itcould possibly have been, thanks to long-rangeplanning and advance training of 1,000 wildliferescue individuals from throughout the state.”Pelosi did not agree. “The people we represent arenot satisfied with this response,” she said.

Nor were some of the authorized wildliferesponders on the shoreline who spoke anony-mously out of fear of losing their jobs. Said one,“I really, really, really don’t want to be left in thefield again in California with only one dipnet forequipment with 20 miles of shoreline to patrolwith hundreds of oiled birds everywhere I look.Fish and Game has million of dollars to care forthese birds, and I get one lousy dipnet?”

As ESTUARY went to press, Hancock was hold-ing another hearing and Pelosi pledged thatCongress would continue its probe; five Assemblymembers have drafted new spill legislation whilefive senators have demanded an independentaudit of Cal Fish & Game. Unified Command—ajoint agency made up of the Coast Guard, CalFish & Game, and O’Brien Group, the firm hiredby the shipping company to deal with the spill—began cleaning the Richmond Shoreline onNovember 15, nine days after the accident. KC

2

Photo by Ron Sullivan

Other variables may include how sus-ceptible different species are to bunker oil.Compared with crude oil, little is knownabout the toxicity and persistence ofbunker oil, although it has been shown todamage the reproductive systems of labo-ratory mink. It varies chemically from batchto batch; the exact content of the CoscoBusan’s fuel is not yet known. One studyfound that major oil spills in westernEurope doubled the winter mortality ofcommon murres, whether the culprit wascrude or bunker oil.

Endangered species affected by the spillinclude marbled murrelet, western snowyplover, and brown pelican. SeveralImportant Bird Areas, including RichardsonBay, East Shore Wetlands, and Brooks Islandwere impacted; Brooks Island’s breedingCaspian terns were not home.

UC Davis researchers headed by MichaelZiccardi and Greg Massey are using thecatastrophe to learn more about care andsurvival of oiled birds. They plan to analyzeblood samples to determine the best pre-dictors of survival and clarify the causes ofanemia in spill victims. Up to 30 birds willbe equipped with external radio transmit-ters so their travels and survival can bemonitored once they’re released.

By November 30,338 rehabilitatedbirds had beenreturned to oil-freeshorelines in SanMateo and MarinCounties. The IBRRCsaid 1,704 hadbeen found dead in

the field (977 visiblyoiled); another 586 had died or been euth-anized at the rescue center. Many othersmay have sunk in the Bay or the ocean, orbeen eaten by predators and scavengers. If,as is likely, only one of every ten casualtiesis being retrieved, deaths resulting fromthe spill could exceed 22,000.

CONTACT: Sylvia Wright,swright@ucdavis.edu. JE

Phot

oby

Kristi

Coa

le

CONFERENCE WRAPUP: A GREENER BLUE?CONFERENCE WRAPUP: A GREENER BLUE?DEC2007

plishment.” But the frontier has closed, saidNelson. There are alternatives—cheaper ones—to pumping more water, he said. “We coulddivert less, invest in recycled water, and saveenergy and greenhouse gases. We need to askourselves whether we are entering the era ofsustainability or collapse.”

Redefining Progress’s Gelobter drew parallelsbetween Hurricane Katrina and New Orleansand the potential for similar disaster in the Deltaif we don’t take action to prevent it. If we wereto be pro-active in fixing the Delta, saidGelobter, “we could be a model for the world.”The panel session concluded with Gardner ask-ing what the business community can do tohelp protect the Bay and Delta. Wundermanresponded that we need to focus on better inte-grating transit and development. “We made amistake,” said Wunderman. “We screwed it upby not having the proper balance betweenhousing and public transit. But we’re beginningto get it. It’s time to focus on the urban coreand develop a transit system that supports it.We have to figure out how to overcome theresistance to change that is inherent in the busi-ness community.”

The late morning and afternoon sessions weredevoted to presentations on important changesin the Estuary and how they will be managed.The S.F. Regional Board’s Tom Mumley sug-gested that with new pollutants constantlyemerging and possibly affecting water quality,the state should consider adopting a “Californiaproduct stewardship council” that would requiremanufacturers to adopt a “cradle-to-cradle”approach for their products in order to reducewaste and pollution. The Board’s Richard Lookerbuilt on that theme, pointing out how manysocietal benefits have a parallel environmentalimpact: controlling pests can equal aquatic toxi-city; preventing fires can lead to PBDEs in theBay and its wildlife; health and beauty productsnot removed in wastewater treatment can dis-rupt endocrine and other functions in fish; theproducts and processes leading to economichealth have often led to long-lived environmen-tal contaminants.

Another emerging challenge for Estuaryresource managers is climate change (and asso-ciated sea level rise). The SFPUC’s Michael Carlindiscussed how urban water managers are tryingto cope. “The San Francisco water supply isgoing to be rain dominated instead of snowdominated,” said Carlin. The SFPUC plans todiversify its water sources, he said, by becomingpart of a Bay Area-wide regional desalinationproject, by relying more on groundwater, andby using graywater to flush toilets.

U.C. Berkeley’s Matt Kondolf also discussedthe impacts climate change will have, particu-larly on the Delta, which he warned could be“New Orleans East.” “We have created the same

3

The theme of this year’s State of the Estuaryconference was “A Greener Shade of Blue,” andthe conference returned a mixed verdict onwhether or not the Estuary and its watershed arein fact “greener.” On an unusually rainy Octobermorning, Oakland city council president JeanFong welcomed a crowd of nearly 600 people tothe Scottish Rite Center on Lake Merritt’s shores,reminding them that water quality and restora-tion are a priority for Oakland, which wasrecently named the country’s fifth-most-sustain-able city and has passed Measure DD, whichprovides $200 million to restore Lake Merritt andOakland’s creeks. Following Fong, ABAG’s HenryGardner, the Bay Area Council’s Jim Wunderman,NRDC’s Barry Nelson, Delta Vision Blue RibbonTask Force’s Phil Isenberg, BCDC’s Will Travis, andRedefining Progress’s Michel Gelobter brain-stormed about the role of the Delta in the futureof the Bay Area.

“How can we balance social justice, sustain-able development, and the environment whilemoving forward with the Bay-Delta?” askedGardner. “Many cities granted conditional usepermits in the communities closest to the Bay inlow-income and minority communities to sup-port a variety of business activities. That had adevastating impact on some of those communi-ties, conditions that persist today.”

Wunderman spoke of the Bay’s importance,both as a draw for tourists, with 260,000 areajobs devoted to tourism, and as a major attractorof new residents. He also spoke of the Port ofOakland’s importance as the fifth-largest port inthe United States and as a provider of blue-collarjobs. “The Port of Oakland has tremendousexpansion capabilities consistent with the envi-ronmental sustainability of the Bay,” Wundermandeclared. “It’s underutilized as a transportationmechanism.” Wunderman assured the crowdthat the business community sees the health ofthe Bay-Delta as critical.

BCDC’s Travis jumped right to climatechange. He predicted that all of the Bay previ-ously lost to fill will eventually be reclaimed byBay waters. Other manifestations of climatechange will include more frequent storm surges,heavy rains, high tides, and high winds, plusextended droughts and wildfires, he warned.

“[Climate change] will have profound localimpacts. We need a plan that anticipates that.”But the devil is in the details, he admitted. “Howdo we plan a region and a Bay that will surelyget bigger? We are going to have to build a lotof levees that are big enough and strongenough to hold back floods around the airports.We also need to take a hard look at where itmight be most cost-effective to remove existingdevelopments and replace them with wetlands,which absorb floods and sequester carbon.” Alsoon Travis’s to do list: “abandon any future plansto develop low-lying areas.” Said Travis, “We

need a plan for the Estuary that is bold andaudacious. We’ve got to stop talking about howto restore it to the way it was; we need todesign for different elevations, chemistry,species, to do proactive management. The issueis not whether we are playing God—we arealready doing that—but how to get it right.”

Isenberg addressed the Estuary’s politicalgeography. “Why are the Bay and Delta two dif-ferent political regions despite being connected?I say it is a pure artifact of notions of regionalself-importance—it’s human nature that each of

us is the center of the universe.” Isenberg toldthe largely Bay Area crowd “your strength isyour weakness. You agreed on what it meant tosave the Bay, playing to the strength of regionalimportance.” But now, the forgotten Delta musttake center stage, said Isenberg. The Delta VisionTask Force was charged with creating a plan toprotect and improve the Delta ecosystem, saidIsenberg, while at the same time protecting andimproving the state’s water supply system. “TheDelta ecosystem is going to hell. Not one personor organization has said that the Delta is in goodshape. [The Delta issue] is collectively muchmore than the Bay Area because it’s the transferpoint of all the water that comes in. Whereshould the state go on the question of theecosystem?” Isenberg pointed out that it is notjust the swimming pools of Southern Californiaand Coachella Valley taking water from theDelta; it is also—and has been for a long time—the Bay Area. “It can’t be ‘our water projects aregood, and theirs are bad.’”

NRDC’s Nelson presented himself as the“panel historian,” taking the crowd through keydates in the Bay’s history and how its role haschanged from when it was discovered byEuropeans to mining and commercial intereststo the building of the Central Valley Project,which he christened “the dawn of the goldenage of the hydraulic frontier. We built the high-est dam in America, the most elaborateplumbing system, and the largest pumps on theface of the planet. It was an astonishing accom-

“The issue is notwhether we areplaying God—weare already doingthat—but how to

get it right.”

DEC2007

conditions for a similar disaster inCalifornia,” he said, describing how leveesraise the flood stage. “The Delta region isgrowing faster than Mexico. Housingbelow sea level will inevitably flood.”

SFEI’s Josh Collins said scientists needto come up with a new set of tools forsimulating habitat response to climatechange, in order to make choices amongscenarios. “Tracking change is not enough,”said Collins. “With the increased rate ofchange, wetlands won’t be protected.Wetlands should be viewed in their water-shed context. There’s a logical progressionfrom watershed-based wetland planningto protection.”

One positive change in Estuary man-agement, according to BCDC’s SteveGoldbeck, is the progress made in usingdredged spoils for beneficial uses—i.e.,wetland restoration projects. Since theLong Term Management Strategy (fordredged materials) was implemented in1993, said Goldbeck, the volume ofmaterial disposed of in the Bay has beenreduced by 50%. “Our long-term goal isto have no more than one million cubicyards per year of in-Bay disposal,” saidGoldbeck. “We are halfway there.”

And Cal Fish & Game’s Susan Ellisdescribed another positive change, exemplifiedin how her agency responded rapidly to thequagga mussel invasion. “We had a unifiedresponse using incident command with stateand federal agencies, Metropolitan WaterDistrict, the City of San Diego, and a multi-statequagga team. We have them contained inSouthern California right now.”

The afternoon session focused on importantchanges to aquatic resources and wildlife—fish,mammals, and birds—in the Estuary. DWR’s TedSommer reviewed the state of the latest scienceon the “pelagic organism decline” (POD) ofDelta and longfin smelt, threadfin shad, andstriped bass. Probably the most pressing—and asyet unanswered—question is whether Deltasmelt have dropped below critical populationlevels. As far as the cause of the decline, saidSommer, scientists are asking themselves whereanything has changed in the Delta, and howand why. In 2007, there was increased toxicityin the Delta from contaminants and toxic algaethat moved into core Delta smelt habitat, adecline in recruitment and habitat quality,reduced food availability due to invasive species,and increased mortality. There was also moresmelt mortality at the pumps in recent winterswhen pumping increased to the point of creat-ing negative flows in Old and Middle rivers, saidSommer. “At this very moment, scientists fromall over the world are trying to figure [the POD]out,” said Sommers.

U.S. EPA’s Bruce Herbold built upon Sommer’stalk, telling the audience that “scientists havefound a lot of what caused the POD, but that’snot going to solve the problem. Everything elseis secondary to the fact that there are not manyfish out there.” Herbold said that genetic diver-sity in the smelt population may be so low at thispoint that the viability of their offspring isaffected. Another problem is that their fall habitathas shrunk and moved eastward. Why? “We’vestabilized flows,” said Herbold. “They used to bevery variable.” Herbold suggested that the Deltahas become more like a lake. “This means lessestuarine fish. The POD may have been a tippingpoint—from a variable estuarine system to asteady state/lake-lagoon type of system.”

Fish & Game’s Kathy Hieb broadened thefocus from the Delta to the Pacific Ocean,describing how changes in ocean temperaturesand nutrients are affecting the Estuary’s aquaticcritters. In warm water years, Dungeness crabhave poor embryo and larval survival, whilePacific herring, which go back and forthbetween the Bay and the ocean to spawn andrear, respond poorly to El Niño years. “Theyprey on zooplankton,” said Hieb. “When theocean is warmer, there are less zooplankton.”With warmer ocean temperatures, Hieb pre-dicted, there will be poor recruitment of coldtemperature species, and migration to the Bayof more warm water tropical species. She alsopredicted more “dead zones” from toxic algalblooms, caused by the increase in nutrients result-ing from warmer water.

4

U.S. Fish & Wildlife’s Joelle Buffaswitched the focus to mammals, dis-cussing the state of the endangered saltmarsh harvest mouse and harbor seals atSouth Bay refuges. Buffa described howmanagers have taken various actions,including acquiring land, removing fill,reintroducing tidal action, and conduct-ing other water management activities,to aid the mouse. In one instance, theycreated a “mouse pasture,” transplantingmice from a proposed development siteand tracking them afterwards. “Welearned that the mice do colonize newhabitats, and that salinity is important [toencourage pickleweed growth],” saidBuffa. “Translocation can be successfulwhere the population is low and whereyou create high tide refugia.”

USGS’s John Takekawa presented anavian perspective on the Bay—which,because there are so many species ofbirds with such different lifestyles—iscomplicated. “If you don’t have long-term data, it is very hard to make senseof complex phenomena,” said Takekawa.He and his colleagues are now studyingthe movements of individually markedbirds. One surprise was that the SouthBay’s Colma Creek, surrounded by indus-

try, is one of the most important spots forclapper rails in the entire Bay. With multiplerestoration projects taking place around the Bay,said Takekawa, resource managers need to keeplooking at all of the projects from a bird’s eyeview to evaluate their effects. He added thatmigratory birds responded quickly to South Baysalt pond restoration, with overall numbersincreasing at the ponds. “But will mudflat valuesbe decreased?” he asked. “A small change in theelevations of mudflats could make a different toshorebirds if we start having sea level rise. Theirtime for foraging could be decreased, alongwith a corresponding decrease in population.”

The morning session of Day Two refocusedon the Delta. The CALFED Science Program’sMichael Healey said that as sea level rises, newdevelopment will need to be better planned toreduce the risk of flooding. “The Delta of thefuture is not going to be the same as today,”said Healey, echoing Travis’s comments aboutthe Bay. “We need to plan and design for aDelta that will deliver the services we value.”Healey also stressed the need to “monitor andmassage” what’s happening in the Delta. “Thereare no right or wrong solutions; just better orworse. We need to take a much more adaptiveapproach. As soon as you impose one solution,the system changes in response, and you have awhole new set of problems to deal with.”

The Public Policy Institute’s Ellen Hanak gavean overview of the Delta’s value to society—water supply, agriculture, ecosystems, infrastructure,

DEC2007

recreation, and hunting, among others. With thehousing market slowing down at least temporar-ily, said Hanak, there might be a short-termopportunity to make changes in the system.“There’s the real possibility that we couldencounter big problems in the Delta before anew management strategy is in place. There’s atwo-thirds risk of a catastrophic failure over thenext 50 years, with earthquakes and sea levelrise. What this means in terms of those servicesis that the ‘bowls’ [described by PWA’s PhilWilliams, see below] in the Delta would be filledwith water coming from the Bay. We wouldhave to shut down the pumps for a while. Wecan’t go back to the Delta of 150 years ago, butwe can’t stand still either,” said Hanak. “TheDelta’s fragility is California’s central water man-agement challenge.” Hanak concluded bypredicting that “everyone will not get bettertogether in the Delta of the future.”

USGS’s Dan Cayan told the crowd that sealevel rise in S.F. Bay has followed the historicalpatterns of global sea level rise, predicting that“we can expect both a drier and a more haz-ardous water future, and a saltier Bay-Deltaenvironment compared with the historic envi-ronment.” Cayan also predicted that a sedimentdeficit will probably be a characteristic of thefuture Delta and said that warming tempera-tures are approaching lethal limits for fish. “Forsome fish species in the Delta, an increase of acouple of degrees could catapult the situationinto catastrophe.”

DWR’s Ralph Svetich described the ongoingDelta Risk Management Strategy study examin-ing the fragility of the Delta’s levees. Phase 1examined the risk to Delta levees from earth-quakes, floods, sea level rise, subsidence, and acombination of all of those occurrences. Anindependent review panel was critical of thereport, and a revision is pending. Phase 2 willevaluate individual risk reduction strategiesbased on risks found in Phase 1. So far, saidSvetich, the preliminary phase 1 results show arisk of island inundation in flood events, with ahigh probability of failure for western and cen-tral Delta islands, a finding that closely matchesU.S. Army Corps models.

The Suisun Resource Conservation District’sSteve Chappell reminded the audience of theimportance of Suisun Marsh, the “forgottenlink” between the Bay and Delta. Chappelldescribed the river otters, salt marsh harvestmice, short-eared owls, Suisun thistle, and othernative and non-native species, including fish,that live in and around the marsh, and the manymigratory waterfowl and diving ducks that useit. Chappell also described the programmaticCEQA/NEPA process underway for a SuisunMarsh management plan that includes sometidal marsh restoration. “Opportunities are bet-ter in Suisun Marsh for restoration than in theDelta,” said Chappell. “It is not as subsided.” Of

course all restoration is predicated on willingsellers, stressed Chappell. “Salinity intrusion is abig issue,” said Chappell. “As are mercury andcarbon. We have to consider those in planimplementation.”

Following on the carbon theme, USGS’sRoger Fujii described how a pilot project atTwitchell Island flooded tules to encouragedecomposition, and rebuilt subsided soils at thesame time. As the tules die and decay, themarsh sequesters carbon dioxide at higher ratesthan agricultural fields. With microbial decom-position offset by biomass accretion, the landsurface builds back up. Fujii reported elevationgains of up to four inches per year. By increasingaccretion rates to nine inches per year, theDelta’s accommodation space (the “huge hole”described below) could be reduced by 70% infive years, said Fujii. The amount of carbon diox-ide sequestered would equal the reduction inemissions if all the SUVs in California wereswapped for Priuses, said Fujii.

The afternoon session broadened the focus tothe question of how to integrate restoration intomanaging watersheds for flood protection,recreation, water supply, and a laundry list ofother beneficial human uses. First up was PWA’sPhil Williams, who stressed that any manage-ment actions taken to improve the Delta willalso affect the rest of the Estuary. “We’ve createda massive hole—up to 20 feet below sea level—on 340,000 acres of farmland behind levees inthe Delta,” said Williams. “I don’t believe we’vefully grasped how this will affect physicalprocesses and how that will affect the rest of theEstuary.” That huge hole is subsiding about sixtimes faster than sea level is rising, said Williams,which means that, in a “doomsday” scenario, alarge portion of this volume could end up intidal waters. “The whole tidal Estuary could geta lot bigger,” said Williams. “The area of SanFrancisco Bay would be doubled, but just asimportant, the physical processes—the tides, themovement of saltwater and sediment that sus-tains the Bay—could be significantly altered.”

U.C. Berkeley’s Mark Stacey moved south, tothe salt pond restoration project, discussing itspossible effects on the rest of the South Bay. In astudy of the island ponds adjoining CoyoteCreek, Stacey found that as more water movedup the creek through the breaches into theponds, there was an increase in the tidal prism,but the effects of the changes were differentacross different phases of the tides. “When youopen up the restoration sites to tidal action, itdissipates the funnel effect that characterizes thefar South Bay, which could change the inunda-tion regime for high marsh habitat,” said Stacey.A decrease in amplification is good for diminish-ing flooding, but bad for marsh habitat. Andbecause sources of sediment for the restorationproject are “down Estuary,” the restoration sitesare not going to capture much sediment, saidStacey. There is very little sediment coming indirectly from the watershed; instead the sedi-ment that does reach the restoration sites islikely to be coming from the far South Bay viarecycling by tides and winds.

Moving to the North Bay, the Sonoma LandTrust’s John Brosnan discussed the realities of tryingto integrate watershed and wetlands restorationplanning. Brosnan said his agency is trying toachieve the goals set forth in the BaylandsEcosystem Habitat Goals Report and the CCMP.Yet, using the ongoing Sears Point RestorationProject as a case study, he showed how con-straints like flood protection, invasives control,remediation, multiple users, sea level rise, andphysical infrastructure—in this case Highway 37and a rail line—are not only splitting up the land-scape, but also “dictating what we can and can’tdo with integrating wetlands and tidal wet-lands.” Having a rail line there triples the cost ofrestoration, said Brosnan. “Once the agriculturallevees are taken down [for restoration], we haveto build bigger, stronger levees for the railroadand Highway 37 because of sea level rise.”Despite “huge buy-in” from neighbors, ranchers,and farmers, said Brosnan, “the highway and rail-road [which refuses to help defray the costs] aredriving the outcome.”

SFEI’s Letitia Grenier stressed the need to givewildlife conservation equal stance with floodprotection and clean water supply. “It’s all partof the same goal,” said Grenier. “Wildlife inhabitlandscapes. What we do in the Bay affects thewhole flyway. There are four to five million birdscoming through here. How can we act on alandscape scale to keep them here?” Ourmodern landscape has seen a huge loss of con-nectivity, she said. “We have the tools to plan forproviding better connecting habitat for wildlife,but we lack a common vision. We haven’t reallyspecified what our wildlife goals are. Instead, weare stuck waiting for a crisis. How can we investearlier in landscapes for wildlife?”

Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge’sArthur Feinstein offered a pragmatic perspective

5

PWA

DEC2007

of wildlife conservation around the Bay. “What’snot to be thrilled about?” asked Feinstein. “Wehave over 100 species of wildlife and plants listedas endangered or threatened. No Bay Areaspecies has yet been delisted.” As solutions,Feinstein suggested that we need to focus onhabitat diversity, links between habitats, biggerareas of habitat, and freedom from humanharassment. Public access has had a negativeimpact on wildlife, said Feinstein, citing birderswho harass the birds they are watching andboaters who disturb resting ducks on the Bay, aswell as development near sensitive areas, such asthe least tern habitat at the old Alameda NavalAir Station. “Once you get people into wildareas, even urban areas, you’re going to loseyour diversity,” said Feinstein. “Even in verydense areas, if you keep people away, there arenice wildlife effects. If we want full environmentalrestoration and large diverse habitats,” con-cluded Feinstein, “we also need to control us.”

Coastal plant ecologist Peter Baye addressedthe fact that many of our tidal marsh restorationprojects have not included rare plants that couldbe collected from remnant sites and propagated,helping to ensure their survival as species. Oneexample is a rare salt marsh owl’s clover that stillexists in Whittell Marsh near Point Pinole.“Almost none of these rare species are findinghomes in tidal marsh restoration sites,” saidBaye. “Even where there are well-developedmarsh plains and channels, 30 years later [theserestoration projects] still support only the mostcommon tidal marsh species.” Discussing therestored Muzzi Marsh, Baye pointed out that nouncommon species have dispersed from nearbyHeerdt Marsh, the oldest prehistoric marsh inthe area, to colonize Muzzi. Baye ended with aseries of recommendations for encouragingdiversity, including designing restorationmarshes more creatively.

Creativity has been critical in restoring theNapa River, according to Napa County FloodControl’s Richard Thomasser, who described thehistory of this multiyear, multi-stakeholder, multi-objective effort. After the Army Corps presented aplan to channelize the river in concrete in the1960s (and again in the 1990s), the communitydemanded that any plan for flood control also bea plan for a “living river” that would connect theriver to its historical floodplain. As a result, theconsensus-based project includes a geomorphicchannel design that will restore proper sedimenttransport balance, and the creation of 650 acresof wetlands. Five major bridges are being madehigher and longer to free up hydraulic constric-tions, and to span the channel and the newmarshplains, said Thomasser; two bridges werecompletely rebuilt. “The river and habitat nowhave some room to move.”

The S.F. Regional Board’s Bruce Wolfe gave anoverview of his agency’s efforts to protect bothrivers and marshes. “We’re better regulatingdevelopment of upland areas,” said Wolfe. “We

are now trying to manage flows better than wehave and the changes in runoff patterns thatdevelopment causes.” Wolfe said his agency nolonger takes water quality-based effluent limits

from a national list, but instead tackles them ona statewide and regional basis. “TMDLs arereally watershed plans,” said Wolfe. “We arenow looking at wetlands and streams as a physi-cal unit. Wetlands are really the deltas of ripariansystems.” Another change at his agency, saidWolfe, is recognizing that riparian zones havemany benefits.

The Coastal Conservancy’s Steve Ritchie builtupon the “deltas” idea. As the salt pond restora-tion project nears the end of its five-yearplanning process, said Ritchie, “what about theponds’ connection to local watersheds?” Butmaking that connection might be complicated.“It’s flood protection with restoration, not just afun little restoration project,” said Ritchie.

Perhaps the most poignant example of tryingto integrate restoration into watershed manage-ment and water supply was that of the long-termefforts to restore steelhead to Alameda Creek,the focus of the afternoon session. The NationalMarine Fisheries Services’ Maura Moody startedoff by describing the recovery plan being draftedfor Central California Coast salmon and steel-head. The Center for Ecosystem Managementand Restoration’s Andy Gunther said that thecreeks that connect to the Bay are underincreasing pressure. “Choosing restoration willrequire that we conduct experiments on how torestore steelhead trout. Their fight upstream isboth mysterious and inspiring. Returning thesewild creatures provides something to us as well,”said Gunther. The lifecycle and impact these fishhave had over time, said Gunther, give them thecultural status of “charismatic megafauna. Steel-head can drive ecosystem management: They usean entire watershed in their lifecycle. They can

help preserve the landscape for future genera-tions,” said Gunther.

The Alameda County Water District’s EricCartwright described some of the physical barri-ers that will need to be addressed to restorepassage for these fish. “The question is how toprovide passage through the flood control chan-nel while keeping the existing benefits thechannel provides,” said Cartwright. When theArmy Corps built the channel, it did not providefor fish passage, said Cartwright. However, theWater District has decided after conducting sev-eral studies that the District can remove thelowest rubber dam and keep it out of the chan-nel permanently. At the upper rubber dam, theDistrict will build a fish ladder and install fishscreens at several intake structures. Other chal-lenges include funding and instream flows.

The Alameda Creek Alliance’s Jeff Miller gavean historical overview of steelhead presence inthe watershed, describing how Calaveras Dam,built in 1925, cut off access to the best habitat.The watershed also supported coho andChinook salmon at one time, said Miller, andremnant steelhead runs persisted until 1964.Today, steelhead are still trying to make it up thecreek, despite its obstacle course. But attitudeshave changed during the last two decades, andduring the last decade, 27 fish were successfullycaught and moved upstream by volunteers,dramatizing the need for fish passage improve-ments. “The visibility and persistence of thesefish in showing up every year has galvanizedus,” said Miller. The Alliance now has more than1,500 members and more than 15 agenciescooperating in restoration. Genetic analysis oflandlocked fish and anadromous fish below thedams show that their genes are closely related.“The biggest question is whether there will beenough water left in the stream,” said Miller.“Right now, none of the agencies releases flowsfor fish. The draft EIR [for the Calaveras Damreplacement] does not allow for minimum flowsfor fish. We’re hoping to work with the SFPUCto address the impacts of these dams.” LOV

POLLUTION: CAN WE CLEAN IT UP?First off on Thursday morning, the Marine

Mammal Center’s Denise Greig described herstudies of Bay harbor seals and emerging contami-nants. “They eat at the same trophic level humansdo,” said Greig. “PBDEs in San Francisco Bay sealsincreased between 1989 and 1998. They alsohave mercury, lead, PCBs, and DDT in their bod-ies.” Between 1989 and 1998, the PBDE levelswere higher even than those of contaminatedBaltic Sea seals, said Greig, adding that PCB con-centrations in healthy Bay seals appear to bedecreasing, while DDT metabolites are increasing.“So even though those contaminents are bannednow, they get stirred up from the sediment, arepresent in harbor seals, and passed from motherto pup,” explained Greig. The latest worry is

6

“Their fightupstream is bothmysterious and

inspiring.Returning thesewild creatures

provides somethingto us as well.”

DEC2007

PFOS—perfluorooctane sulfonate—another flameretardant. “We only have a small sample so far,but the levels are high compared to Artic polarbears and ringed seals,” said Greig.

Greig was followed by Collin Eagles-Smith,who described the risk to Bay birds from mercury.Eagles-Smith examined mercury concentrations insurf scoter, American avocet, black-necked stilt,Forster’s tern, and Caspian tern adults, chicks,and eggs, finding mercury concentrations tobe highest in Forster’s terns, followed by stilts,Caspian terns, scoters, and avocets. Risk tohatching success is greatest in the South Bay,and 58% of breeding Forster’s tern adults and46% of their eggs exceeded toxicity thresholdsestablished for other birds, raising the questionof whether population impacts might be occur-ring. “This is striking and concerning,” saidEagles-Smith.

Kevin Kelley from CSU Long Beach movedfrom birds to fish, describing the results of hisstudies on Pacific staghorn sculpin and shinerperch. He has found PCBS, PAHs, and chlori-nated pesticides in the livers of both species, aswell as evidence of endocrine-disrupted states.“Endocrine disruptors serve as biomarkers ofenvironmental perturbations,” said Kelley. “Wehave indeed seen endocrine disruption in the Bayin different fish species. We consistently findimpairment near publicly owned treatmentworks sites,” said Kelley.

Tracy Collier of NOAA and Sandie O’Neill ofthe Washington Department of Fish & Wildlifedescribed their agencies’ collaborative work ontoxics in Puget Sound, pointing to the need fora biological observation system for toxic conta-minants. “If you just look at the sedimentcommunity profile relative to other estuaries andbays, Puget Sound is not that contaminated,”said Collier. Yet biologically based monitoringhas shown contamination of the pelagic foodweb, including PCBs in herring, said Collier.“You would not have predicted that from sedi-ment and water measurements.”

Steve Bay, of the Southern California CoastalWater Research Project Authority, wrapped upthe session on the biological effects of pollution.Bay showed how his project uses a “multiplelines of evidence” approach to integrate chem-istry, toxicity, and benthic fauna data to providean overall assessment of sediment conditions inCalifornia. Most of S.F. Bay fell into the “possiblyimpacted” category. “We were surprised; wewere expecting to see 60% of Bay sediments ashaving ‘little or no evidence of impact,’” saidBay. “Instead, a very high amount turned out tobe possibly impacted.” Eighty percent of moni-toring stations showed significant sedimenttoxicity, said Bay.

Midday, talk turned to trash, specifically tothe overwhelming plastic problem in theEstuary, its creeks, and the ocean. ModeratorLarry Kolb estimated that the number of plastic

bags—a frequent visitor to the Bay and its creeksand stormdrains—being used by the public aver-ages out to one bag per person per day. In theBay Area, with seven million people, said Kolb, ifonly one in 1,000 people uses a plastic bag, thatwould still amount to 7,000 bags per day. Savethe Bay’s David Lewis described the overall pot-pourri of trash in the Bay. “It’s not from ships,but from us,” said Lewis, adding that only 20%of water-borne trash comes from boats. Lewissaid big sources of trash in Bay creeks are over-flowing or inadequate trash receptacles anddirect littering and dumping of householdgarbage. But Lewis emphasized that the biggestproblem is plastic. “Ninety percent of it will takeyears or decades to decompose; when it reachesthe ocean, cold saltwater tends to preserve it.”

Possible partial solutions include GovernorSchwarzenegger’s newly formed Ocean Pro-tection Council (tasked with tackling trash) andCoastal Cleanup Days (in 2006, more than

686,000 pounds of trash were removed fromthe Bay shoreline in a single day). Save the Bayis using ad campaigns to try to change people’sbehavior while some cities are implementingsource reduction, banning plastic bags andStyrofoam food containers. Lewis would like tosee the S.F. Regional Board implement strongerstormwater permits regarding trash. Trash sepa-rators and booms will work but not unless theyare mandatory, said Lewis. “The Water Boardcould require significant trash reduction. Savethe Bay has presented thousands of petitionsasking the Board to do so.” Lewis also described“end-of-pipe” capture nets used in SouthernCalifornia that help divert trash before it ends upin the ocean. Lake Merritt is one of the fewplaces around the Bay where vortex separators(mechanical devices) are being used to collecttrash. The lack of effort to do so elsewherearound the Bay “should be an intense source ofshame,” said Lewis.

Lewis was followed by Nute Engineering’s SteveMoore, formerly of the S.F. Regional Board, who,while working there, designed and undertook a“trash rapid assessment” study to examine thesources, patterns, and amounts of trash in BayArea waterways. With Board co-workers, Moore

surveyed 26 creeks around the Bay, from Petal-uma to San Mateo, looked for longitudinalpatterns in the watersheds they surveyed, andperformed return surveys to determine the trashreturn rate. Oakland’s Peralta Creek scored thelowest of all of the sites, polluted with humanwaste and syringes. “We had to stop out of con-cern for our own health at one point,” recalledMoore. On 93 site visits, Moore’s team picked upmore than 25,000 pieces of trash, or three piecesfor every foot of stream. Half of the trash wasplastic, followed by glass and paper. The highesttrash deposition rates were found in both wetand dry weather. “We have to address trash inthe dry season, too, not just after the first flush,”said Moore. “It’s either being tossed, washed, orblown in.” Not surprisingly, the worst sitestended to be located at the bottoms of water-sheds that receive runoff from an entire water- orpipe-shed. “As the low point in the landscape,these streams are sticky places,” said Moore.

“It shows you that if you care about the Bay,you have to care about the creeks. Streams arethe likely main pathway of floatable plastic tomarine waters, and our trash levels are notimproving but perhaps getting worse,” saidMoore, who added that he found trash in water-sheds across all socioeconomic strata. “We needto invest in structural or other solutions andaddress it in a systematic way,” concludedMoore. “Trash is today’s sewage.”

The next trash talker, the City of Oakland’sLeslie Estes, described herself as a “visitor fromthe real world.” Oakland has a toolbox of strate-gies for dealing with trash, Estes explained, fromanti-littering programs in schools where streetsweepers interact with kids, to “adopt a spot”cleanup programs with citizens, to enforcingpenalties for illegal dumping, conducting cleancreeks campaigns, and hiring kids to go out andpick up trash. The city recently banned non-biodegradable takeout containers and establishedan “excess litter” fee for all food facilities. It triedto implement a plastic bag ban like SanFrancisco’s but was sued. It has also installed aboom across the mouth of Damon Slough (atrash “hot spot”) and is targeting other knownpolluters upstream of the slough, like theOakland Coliseum and flea market. But nothingis simple, says Estes. To install the boom, theyhad to build a road to service it and buy a truckto hold a crane. After the first flush, says Estes,as much as 6,000 pounds of trash is removedfrom the boom, an act that requires several daysof cleanup. The city received $4.5 million fromMeasure DD to install structural controls at LakeMerritt. “This is our jewel, and it’s trashed,” saidEstes. “ The city is also installing drain inlet bas-kets (which need frequent maintenance) andstormwater separators in various watersheds. Butthese projects, says Estes, “are a big deal andmean big construction.” Oftentimes, construc-tion interferes with underground utilities, andbeing an old, built-out city, Oakland is full of

7

The Guadalupe River in San Jose, flowing with plastic

DEC2007

surprises in that regard, said Estes. Her conclu-sion? “We would like to find the key answer butI believe the solution is a combination.”

Estes was followed by Mark Cuneo of SantaMonica, who, after assuring the largely Bay Areaaudience that, unlike the stereotype of aSouthern California water-sucking city, SantaMonica plans to be 80% independent fromimported water by 2010, described his city’sefforts to tackle stormwater pollution. SantaMonica only receives 14 inches of rain per year,but, surrounded on three sides by Los AngelesCounty, it receives plenty of trash in runoff.Ballona Creek and the Los Angeles River havebeen put on the 303(d) list of impaired water-ways due to trash (their mouths have had trashbooms installed), and a trash TMDL has beenput in place. “If you can avoid litigation overTMDLs and regulations, you’re way ahead of thegame,” he advised. Over the past 10 years,Santa Monica has spent $120 million installingcatch basin insets and screens, and a state-of-the-art stormwater treatment plant. In dry years,the city also “boards over” storm drain inlets tokeep trash out. “But trash doesn’t magically dis-appear out of these things; we have to do themaintenance,” said Cuneo.

The afternoon session segued from trash backto other pollutants and what to do about them.SFEI’s Lester McKee reported on our state ofknowledge about pollutants in the Bay, citingPBDEs here as among the highest in the world.Pollutants in stormwater continue to prevent theBay from achieving better water quality, saidMcKee, and though recent TMDLs call for signifi-cant reductions in mercury and PCBs, we do nothave enough information about where the highestconcentrations occur and how they cycle throughthe urban environment. However, he added,recent, first-of-their-kind studies have demon-strated that PCBs probably linger in greaterconcentrations in older industrial areas in the BayArea, a clue that can tell regulators where to focus.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program’sJim Scanlin spoke of the challenges in trying to

comply with the new TMDLs for mercury andPCBs. To do its part in reducing total mercuryinputs to the Bay by 50%, Alameda Countywould need to reduce its mercury inputs by 78kilograms per year; similarly it would have toreduce PCBs by about nine kilograms per year.“Can we get there from here?” asked Scanlin,adding that his agency has found frequent streetsweeping to be more effective than is generallythought at removing mercury.

EBMUD’s Gayle Tupper described her agency’ssuccesses in working with dental offices to installamalgam separators that remove mercury, and incollecting mercury thermometers from residents,hospitals, and schools. Seventy-five pounds ofmercury was collected from East Bay residents intake-back events last year, said Tupper. An ongo-ing challenge is the pharmaceuticals that maketheir way into the Bay after being flushed ordumped down drains. “We’re looking for ways tocontrol these substances and raise awareness toconvince people [the substances] shouldn’t godown the drain,” said Tupper.

Concluding the pollution session, UCLA’sMike Stenstrom told the crowd that “for betteror worse, TMDLs are the driving force” behindcleanup efforts. He described modeling toolsand data being used to evaluate alternatives formeeting TMDLs in the upper Ballona Creekwatershed. Because so many heavy metals andother urban pollutants lodge in sediment, saidStenstrom, “we ought to be looking at gettingsediment out of stormwater.” To that end, hedescribed some of the low-tech, green, “biofil-tration” solutions that places like Seattle haveimplemented using vegetation—swales andstormwater planters (aka “infiltration trenches”),among others. LOV

RESTORATION: DIVERSEECOSYSTEMS AND CHALLENGES

Assessing progress on the Baylands EcosystemHabitat Goals, Carl Wilcox of Cal Fish & Gamerecalled a colleague’s optimism in 1995: “We’lldo this in six months and 50 pages or less.”Four years and countless meetings later, thegoals—a biologically based vision for ecosystemrestoration—launched a new era in Bay conser-vation, providing guidance for the S.F. Bay JointVenture, the South Bay Salt Ponds RestorationProject, and county-level Habitat ConservationPlans. Next step: linkage with anticipatedSubtidal, Upland, and Streams Habitat Goals,and with CALFED’s Ecosystem RestorationProgram.

NOAA Fisheries’ Korie Schaeffer gave anupdate on the process of establishing goals formanaging and restoring S.F. Bay’s “hidden” sub-tidal habitat. “The focus will be on habitats wewant to see more of or in better condition,” shesaid. Her group is factoring in human stressors.“We can’t just wave our arms and come up with

8

some goals without realizing past impacts arestill active,” she said. A final goals document isexpected by December 2008.

Nancy Schaefer of Land ConservationServices, Stuart Weiss of the Center for EarthObservation, and Ryan Branciforte of GreenInfoNetwork discussed another goal-setting project,this one for upland habitat. Phase 1 involvesidentifying how much land in what kind of con-dition will be needed to conserve the Bay Area’supland biodiversity, racing against urban sprawl.Vegetation mapping is already completed. Weisssaid goals include preserving 90% of globallyrare habitat and allowing room for ecosystemsto change. He foresaw partnerships with privatelandowners, including ranchers. “In grassland, amoderate amount of grazing is really the key tomanagement over large areas,” he said.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife’s Eric Tattersall took on thecontentious subject of habitat conservation plan-ning. “If regional HCP is done the right way, weend up preserving large functioning ecosystems,”he said, while project-by-project approaches leadto fragmented habitat. Tattersall describedrecently permitted plans in Santa Clara Countyand east Contra Costa County, and a pendingplan in Solano County. “Every successful planhas a political champion who can bring it tofruition,” he concluded.

Turning to the past, SFEI’s Robin Grossingerlooked at historical ecosystems as guides torestoration. “The historical landscape may beeven more directly relevant than we had real-ized,” he said. “Our society took over thislandscape quite suddenly. We didn’t ask for theowner’s manual.” Using old maps and writtenrecords, Grossinger is attempting to identify thewet and dry places, the intermittent streams,and the overlooked “B-side” habitat types, likesycamore alluvial woodland. Remnant seasonalwetlands in Santa Clara and Napa counties “aretiny fragments of former perennial wetlands. Ifyou’re interested in wetland restoration, historicwetlands show you where to look.”

If ecological history can be obscure, thefuture of estuarine environments is up forgrabs—with climate change a prime source ofuncertainty. PWA’s Jeremy Lowe said S.F. Bay’smarshes have handled historic sea level riseswell. “But sea level rise will accelerate. Will themarshes keep up?” he asked. As the waters rise,mudflat and marsh systems tend to move land-ward—if enough sediment is available. In thelong-term, we may need to recharge mudflatswith dredge soil. Lowe discussed tradeoffsbetween leaving levees in place for wave protec-tion and reconnecting marsh and mudflat, andpossible engineering fixes.

Naomi Feger of the S.F. Regional Board andRoger Leventhal of FarWest Restoration Engineer-ing titled their joint presentation “Sediment—theGood, the Bad and the Buried.” Feger presentedcase studies of three remediation efforts using

Steve Moore

S.F. REGIONAL BOARD TRASH RAPID ASSESSMENT RESULTS

there have been surprises, like the challenge ofdealing with dissolved oxygen. “You don’t alwaysknow what you don’t know,” said Morris.

In his talk on restoring Delta ecosystems,Stuart Siegel of Wetlands and Water Resourcescalled this huge area “a case study in complex-ity.” Manmade changes—diking islands,shortening channels—complicate the goal ofmaintaining “viable populations of desirablespecies. In the Delta, we don’t say ‘native’; thereare some non-natives people like to have, likestriped bass.” Climate change introduces furthercomplexities. “Wetlands can move up gentleslopes as sea level rises, but not with levees,”Siegel said. He sketched ideas emerging fromcurrent planning efforts, including new flood-plains and “green” levees.

When S.F. State University’s Tom Parker tookthe podium, it was late in the day. “When I goto conferences, usually by this time I’m outdrinking somewhere,” he quipped. But his mes-sage was no joke: global climate change imperilsthe Estuary’s marshes. Temperature increase maydecrease primary production; inundation andflooding will increase, with restored marsh sitesinundated more than natural sites. Rising salinity

will reduce species diversity. “Given temperatureand salinity increase and marsh accretion ratesfailing to keep up with sea level rise, what’s thescenario?” he asked. “The winner is pickle-weed,” which occurs now in a variety of salinityand inundation conditions. But it’s more sensi-tive to salinity in poorly drained sites. So anincrease in salinity and inundation will signifi-cantly reduce wetland productivity, “especially inpickleweed, the one species most likely toexpand under those conditions.”

Closing the restoration session, Peggy Olofsonof the Invasive Spartina Project reported on theongoing war against aggressive hybrid cordgrassstrains (see ESTUARY, October 2007). She calledfor the development of best practices forregional agencies. “Monitor and remove it—justmonitoring has gotten us nowhere,” she said.“Don’t open a new marsh too early near existinghybrid Spartina. And be careful with equipmentand dredge sediment.” JE

DEC2007

dredged material: Hamilton Marsh, PeytonSlough, and the Peninsula Sportsmen’s Club (thelast a lead-shot contamination site). Leventhalnoted some “regulatory discomfort with usingfill at all; it’s not a normal mouse-hugging kindof wetland project.” But he argued that if youknow your contaminants, dredged sediment canbenefit restoration with “no net degradation.”He said economic constraints must be overcomein order to increase beneficial reuse of sedimentsand reduce ocean disposal.

Next up was San Jose State University profes-sor emeritus Howard Shellhammer, now withH.T. Harvey, who has spent 50 years studyingthe endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. Hediscussed small mammals—the mouse and theelusive salt marsh wandering shrew—in tidalmarsh restoration projects. The shrew may ormay not still exist in the Bay’s marshes; if it’sthere, it will benefit from mouse conservationmeasures. Both need mature marshes with inter-nal escape cover and high marsh tidal refugia,but very little high marsh remains. Reducing theslope of outboard dikes to allow for high marshdevelopment would help, as would connectivitybetween mouse habitat sites.

PRBO Conservation Science’s Nadav Nurreviewed birds as indicators of marsh restorationsuccess, measured by demographic metrics:reproductive success, recruitment of juveniles,survival of adults, emigration, and immigration.He said local-scale data is important. “There’sconcern that restoration sites are ecologicaltraps—sinks, not sources.” Nur documented dif-ferent patterns for different bird species. Maturemarsh sites had a 1,500% higher density of saltmarsh common yellowthroats than restorationsites. However, song sparrow nestling survivalrates were highest in some of the restoredmarshes. Biologists are also looking at demo-graphics of California clapper rails, great blueherons, and upland songbirds.

Christy Smith of the San Pablo Bay NationalWildlife Refuge reported on tidal marsh restora-tion and enhancement projects at Tolay Creek,Tubbs Island, and Cullinan Ranch, each present-ing its own set of challenges. At Cullinan Ranch,for example, partial or full restoration wouldrequire new levees to protect Highway 37 fromflooding. Smith stressed adaptive management(“measure three times, cut once”) and the needto keep restoration partners involved.

Smith’s South Bay counterpart, Clyde Morris ofthe Don Edwards S.F. Bay National WildlifeRefuge, looked back on seven restoration projectsspanning 20 years. “It must have been really funback in the 80s to restore things,” he said. “Youdidn’t worry too much about permits, and planswere something you did on the back of an enve-lope.” But he’s seen things improve—with theSouth Bay Salt Pond Restoration, “for the firsttime in my career we’re doing adaptive manage-ment instead of knee-jerk management.” Still

LAND USE: MAKING CONNECTIONSThat land-dependent creatures—and the

farms and other upland areas they inhabit—arein some way related to estuaries was once a for-eign concept. But now, said U.C. Davis’s JeffLoux at the land use session of October’s confer-ence, “It’s self-evident that water and land useplanning are linked.” And as the state’s popula-tion grows, that link will need to tighten,requiring multiple agencies—city planningdepartments, utilities districts, water agencies,and transportation departments—at local andregional levels to work together more closely.

“The region will add five more Oaklands by2035,” said the Joint Policy Committee’s TedDroetthoom, commenting that growth will haveto be planned much more carefully to mitigatethe additional traffic and its effects on air andwater quality. Regional bodies like ABAG arefinally looking into the nexus among air quality,land use, transportation, and water quality. “Ourland use patterns will dictate the need for bettertransit,” said ABAG’s Dave Burch.

Municipalities and regional bodies are trying tofocus growth in specific areas to direct planningand investments into “priority development areas,”said ABAG’s Ken Kirkey. A key element of prioritydevelopment areas is proximity to transit, so thatdriving can be reduced to create what Cities 21’sSteve Raney called a “low-miles community.”

The projections for the Bay Area’s growthmean that managers and policymakers will needto get creative about where to put people andhow to make those living places more sustain-able, the topic of a panel discussion in theafternoon session. “We want to make it so thatpeople get to as much as they can on foot,” saidthe Greenbelt Alliance’s Marla Wilson. To accom-plish that, cities must build compactly and havewalkable streets and neighborhoods, and theyneed to write these ideas into their general plans.“That gives elected officials the will to do it,” saidLaurel Prevetti of the City of San Jose.

Prevetti noted that in the 1970s, San Joseofficials drew a line around the city, indicatingits boundary for growth. That forced lateradministrations to recycle land—developing infillon grayfields like underused parking lots. Muchof the development of the 1970s and 1980s alsoresulted in office parks—large buildings sur-rounded by huge parking lots. One way thatnature has been brought back to such environs,said Prevetti, is through greenways and restoredurban streams.

The topic of creek restoration brought insightfrom the S.F. Regional Board’s Ann Riley, whodescribed how creeks can be creatively inte-grated into cities, such as in San Luis Obispo.When it comes to restoring streams in cities,said Riley, one of the most common problems isnegotiating for more room for the stream—

9

Tom Parker

continued back page

DEC2007

“Hardworking” is the first word mostpeople use to describe Marcia, followedclosely by “dedicated.” She has alwaysanswered her own phone, usuallyreturns calls or emails within hours,and never fails to ask about the kids.At the eleventh hour of any inter-minable meeting, she can alwaysmuster a twinkle in her eye, a widesmile and a good joke, not to mentiona knowing look that hints at the wis-dom she’s gathered in all these years ofeducating the community about theBay and Delta.

“There were a lot of people whothought the Project would not con-tinue after it finished the CCMP in1993,” she says. “The Bay-DeltaAccord was signed the following year,and CALFED was launched with muchsupport and hoopla from the state andfeds. Since then, in all honesty, thehardest thing has been to keep theinterest of stakeholder groups andagencies in implementing theCCMP—keeping it among their priori-ties. I’ve been able to do it throughpersonal contact, making sure that peo-ple understand how the CCMP isvaluable to them, and not saying ‘no’when people ask for help.”

Marcia’s investment over the years—not to mention the hard work of herstaff, the Implementation Committeeand Friends of the Estuary—all paid offin 2007, when the Project undertookto update the CCMP. “What’s beenamazing is that over the last 18months, we’ve seen phenomenalinvolvement from many different inter-ests and agencies. We’ve had 85 peopleworking on 6-7 different committeesattending constant meetings to hashout what needed to be changed,” shesays. “The willingness of people to go

“Essssssssssstuary....” says a sultry-voicedwoman over the radio, daring her manto define it. “A rare middle easternspice? Formal evening attire?” he offers,led on by the suggestiveness of hertone. This 1988 public serviceannouncement to enhance local aware-ness of what an estuary is—the radiodiva soon douses her man in a coldshower of fresh and salt water explana-tions—was one of Marcia Brockbank’searliest products as public outreachmanager for the San Francisco EstuaryProject. At the time, the project’sumbrella agency, the U.S. EPA, com-mented that the PSA “wasn’t seriousenough.” But Marcia’s irreverent senseof humor is one of the things everyonewill miss most when she retires at theend of 2007 after 20 years as championof the Estuary. “She’s a gem,” says oneformer co-worker. “She’s done so muchand taken credit for so little,” saysanother.

Hired in 1986 to organize a publiceducation program and stakeholdercommittees to craft a consensus-basedplan for estuarine protection, Marciaand her team are single-handedlyresponsible for the fact that few peoplein the California water worlds stumbleover the word “estuary” any more, letalone think it has something to dowith horses. She came to the Projectafter producing a number of environ-mental and political spots for Channel2 and the League of Women Voters,working as a technical editor, and hav-ing three kids. In 1994, she took overmanagement of the entire project andwent on to work harder and longer onchampioning the CCMP, the manage-ment plan for the Estuary completedin 1993, than anyone could haveimagined.

through the process once again is strik-ing, to meet numerous times and usetheir professional judgement and pas-sion to fight the necessary battles andcome to agreement. Clearly the valuesand goals that we so eloquentlyreached back in 1993 and then againin 2007 remain important.”

Asked about her own personal passion,Marcia points to freshwater flows. Shebecame interested in the flows issuewhen following the 1980s Bay-Deltahearings, and hoped, in her words, to“have some sort of role in seeing thatcome to a worthwhile end.” Now 20years later, she sees enormous progresson dredging, wetlands restoration, pub-lic awareness about not dumping instorm drains, and creek activism, butnot on flows. “We can’t just stand byand let the Delta become a freshwaterlake, we’ll lose all our estuarine speciesand diversity,” she says.

As for her retirement, Marcia says nosingle thing inspired the decision. “Formany years I’ve been trying to build aplace for SFEP and the CCMP and Ithink we’re pretty much there. But Isee lots of things that need to be done,and it feels like the right time to turnthings over to someone else. I think it’shealthy for an organization to havesomeone new come in with a differentvision and skill set.”

With her new free time, Marcia plansto join some boards, work with her

1 0

Lady Linchpin Retires

Tom Graff, winner of the Jean Auer award, and MarciaBrockbank at October’s conference.

DEC2007

Larry Kolb, retired, SFRWQCB:“Marcia is one of those rare people whomeverybody respects, everybody likes, andeverybody enjoys working with. In all herachievements, Marcia has been utterly mod-est, unassuming, and always reluctant toaccept credit.”

Sam Ziegler, USEPA:“She was a role model for me back when Iwas relatively new in my career. The coolthing was that she could have been mymother, but she wasn’t—here she was doingthis great environmental work, and she wastotally dedicated and competent, and inmany ways mirrored the things I wanted toachieve, which was to stay committed towhat you believe in.To believe that you couldmake a difference. She was, and remains, atotal inspiration.”

Ellen Johnck, Bay Planning Coalition:“Marcia is the emblem and spirit of the SFEP.That spirit means keeping the flock togetherto take care of the Bay—she kept themomentum going by being persistent, diligent,and organized. This was no mean feat, as allthe participants come from different walks oflife and are busy in their own jobs. But shecarried us all with great aplomb and verve.”

Ann Riley, SFRWQCB:“I first met Marcia when working for non-profits trying to restore little loved urbancreeks, and what astonished me about herwas she was extremely concerned aboutgetting seed money to citizen groups in auser-friendly way that was responsive to theirneeds.This was a foreign concept back thenfor those of us working to get grants fromlarger agencies —a light in the wilderness.Now that I work in the same building I seethat she’s here on weekends, here at night,bears an incredible workload without com-plaint, and always says ‘yes’ if you ask her forhelp. She’s created a standard that none ofus can ever hope to attain.”

Leo Winternitz, Delta Vision:“Marcia is a great lady, classy and charming.She has always been a joy to work with. Andshe obviously has a passion for her work,which makes her very effective. I will miss her.”

local creek group, spend more timewith her grandkids, and read all herback issues of The New Yorker. Lookingback, she says the most rewarding thingabout her experience has been thegrowth of her personal understandingof the science, and of what it means tohave a healthy estuary. “I think I’vehad some small role it trying to makethat happen, make a better place forfuture generations that live around theBay. I don’t really know if that willreally be the outcome, but I sure hopeit will.” —ARO

David Lewis, Save the Bay:“Marcia's patient stewardship of the EstuaryProject is the number one reason its workenjoys such broad support among an enor-mous group of diverse partners who careabout the Bay.”

Arthur Feinstein, Citizens Committeeto Complete the Refuge:“For a non-regulatory document, the CCMPhas had more impact than most because itwas so inclusive and had so much buy-in, andthis gave the agencies the freedom to moveforward and do good things. Marcia played akey role in bringing everybody together asyears went by, in keeping the collaborativeelement of the CCMP alive and the workingatmosphere comfortable and functional.”

Rainer Hoenicke, SFEI:“During the early phases of the NationalEstuary Program, few had heard of, let alonewere familiar with, using stakeholder processesin environmental planning and decision-making.Marcia was instrumental in demonstratinghow meeting process and content can andshould be appropriately balanced to getpeople with various backgrounds to arrive attangible outcomes. Later, those of us whowere looking for what to emulate and whatto avoid in establishing the Santa Monica BayRestoration Project finally just relied onMarcia for guidance. Our motto was: ‘Whenin doubt, just call Marcia at SFEP.’ "

Steve Ritchie, Coastal Conservancy:“Marcia was non-threatening in a way thatwasn’t trying to advance Marcia Brockbank,as in not trying to climb to some higherposition or achieve some special reputation.She never had any hidden agenda, she justwanted to do the right thing. She made theEstuary Project a safe place where we couldtalk and try to work things out. She was alsoalways able to maintain the right ties withthe right people at EPA to keep SFEP tied toits origins.“

1 1

Amy Zimpfer, USEPA:“In the early days, she was the critical thirdleg in the Estuary Project’s 3-legged stool—1/3 science, 1/3 process and planning, 1/3

public outreach. Her outreach brought credi-bility with the public to our project, andalmost everything she started—ESTUARYnewsletter, the non-profit friends, the educa-tional campaigns, are still going strong today.She was never afraid to take a stand onsomething, but she would express it in a waythat made people listen and give thought toher views long after the exchange, a uniqueskill. She’s one of the most gracious andhard-working people I know.”

Richard Morat, USFWS:“People would fall on their sword for

Marcia—she has built tremendous socialcapital in the Bay and watershed community.She has been genuine to all, whether withindividual stewards or in the boardrooms ofNGOs. She’s a good listener, yet a warriorwith many of us in mission. After a recenttrip to India, she gave many "par tners inmission" small figures of Ganesh, "the Hinduremover of obstacles"...Telling huh?"

Will Travis, BCDC:“I don’t know of any other institutionalizedarrangement—in this case the CCMP—sopersonified by one person. Marcia has beenthe driving force, the master architect, thekibutzer who keeps us going, and the charmerwho keeps us all working together.”

Itomers how to cut down on landscape water-ing. “It’s the low-hanging fruit, but it helps,”said EBMUD’s Richard Harris.

Michele Pla of the Bay Area Clean WaterAgencies explained that using more recycledwater lowers the need to treat water, brings downenergy consumption, and curbs pollutant loads tothe Bay. “We’re at the end of the road of the sys-tem of using water once and spending a half abillion dollars to treat and put it back,” said Pla.

Linda Fiack of the Delta Protection Comm-issioncompared the Delta and its water supply to thecountry cows that provide milk for city folks. “Mostpeople don’t know where their water comesfrom,” she noted. “The Delta is that cow in thecountry.” But regional and county planners doknow where their water comes from, and they’replanning for it now. Fiack explained how five Deltacounties of Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Sacramento,Solano, and Yolo—all revamping their generalplans—are including a Delta element. And Beniciamayor Elizabeth Patterson, who said her city hasintegrated watershed restoration into its generalplan, wrapped up the session by describing theimportance of connecting small grassroots water-shed groups with movers and shakers. “We needto get their ideas to where the power is.” KC

which often means negotiating for fewer parkingspaces in conjunction with development orredevelopment. Even a small reduction in thenumber of parking spaces can often make a crit-ical difference for a city stream. Riley’s lesson:“Don’t accept a plan as given.”

But one given is that cities have infrastruc-ture—like stormdrains—that greatly affects theirwatersheds, so planners are finding ways toreduce pollution through greener solutions. TheSFPUC’s Rosey Jenks spoke of her agency’sefforts to reduce the number of impervious sur-faces that carry pollution to watersheds. Whenroads are repaved, for example, their imperme-ability can be reduced so they can act as filters.Jenks also described how green roofs—like thenew one at the California Academy of Sciences—are helping reduce runoff.

The idea of green building is currently popu-lar among architects and developers, noted PaulOkamoto of Okamoto Saijo Architecture. Butmore needs to be done in light of global climatechange. Three design concepts should be inte-grated into green building. First is the 2030Initiative (a standard where all buildings shall becarbon-neutral by 2030), which has alreadybeen adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors

Y O U R I N D E P E N D E N T S O U R C E F O R B A Y - D E L T A N E W S & V I E W S

DECEMBER 2007 VOLUME 16, NO. 6

Editorial Office: PO Box 791Oakland, CA 94604lowensvi@sbcglobal.net

Estuary Web site atwww.estuarynewsletter.comTo subscribe to/questions about ESTUARY:(510)622-2499

ESTUARY is a bimonthly publication dedicated to providing anindependent news source on Bay-Delta water issues, estuarinerestoration efforts and implementation of the S.F. Estuary Project’sComprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). Itseeks to represent the many voices and viewpoints that con-tributed to the CCMP’s development. ESTUARY is funded byindividual and organizational subscriptions and by grants fromdiverse state and federal government agencies and local interestgroups. Administrative services are provided by the S.F. EstuaryProject and Friends of the S.F. Estuary, a nonprofit corporation.Views expressed may not necessarily reflect those of staff, advisorsor committee members.

STAFFManaging Editor: Lisa Owens VianiAssociate Editor: Kristi CoalePage Design: Bobbi SloanContributingWriters: Joe Eaton

and American Institute of Architects. Second isanalyzing intensity of transportation as part of agreen building analysis. “We need to understandhow much energy is spent on transportationdue to the location of buildings and our currentland-use patterns,” said Okamoto. Third, build-ings should incorporate the design concept of“passive survivability”—i.e., storing rainwater—in which buildings are still functional when serviceslike electricity, water, and sewer are interrupted.

Phil Bobel of the City of Palo Alto discussedhow the South Bay is starting to use less fresh-water and more recycled water for irrigation.Palo Alto and other cities have been testing eco-roofs, cisterns, and permeable pavers. SaidBobel, “What’s innovative about this? TheBabylonians were doing cisterns.”

The NRDC’s Kristina Ortiz said lots of littlegadgets that might not seem so innovative,incorporated into planning, can collectively savea lot of water. One big consumer of water is thetoilet: New dual flush models can save gallons.Ortiz noted that people need to become asattuned to conserving water as they are toenergy. EBMUD bills now include a water bud-get that not only presents consumption, butalso provides climate information to show cus-

Ideas, questions, feedback?

Send to lowensvi@sbcglobal.net