San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
  SFBJV Home > News

In the News

Media

Joint Venture Partners and Projects

North American Bird Conservation Initiative

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network News

General News & Announcements

H5N1 Avian Influenza
 Looking for information on West Nile Virus? - click here

Wetlands and Global Climate Change

Job and Volunteer Listings

 

 

Study Summarizes West Nile Bird Losses

Excerpted from Birding Community E-bulletin - June 2007


A study in NATURE last month summarized some of the losses in bird populations as a result of the emergence of West Nile Virus in 1999. The research examined 26 years of Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data to assess declines among certain common bird species.

The researchers, S. L. LaDeau, A. M. Kilpatrick, and P. P. Marra, actually focused on 20 common species that are regularly surveyed each breeding season. Populations of seven of these species have shown measurable, if not dramatic, declines across the continent since West Nile's arrival.

West Nile Virus hit seven species - American Crow, Blue Jay, Tufted Titmouse, American Robin, House Wren, Black-capped/Carolina Chickadee and Eastern Bluebird - hard enough to be statistically significant. Only the Blue Jay and House Wren have bounced back since 2005. The hardest-hit species was the American Crow. According to this study about one-third of the crows in the United States may have been killed by West Nile virus.

Suburban America, where many of these species are found in numbers, may offer a ready home for the virus, with an abundance of all the things the virus needs to spread. In the case of the eastern seaboard, Dr LaDeau said, "That heavily packed urban corridor is a bad place to be a bird. The reason for that is that the mosquito prefers human landscape. They do very well in suburbia."

Among the 20 bird species examined, 13 species did not show declines attributed to West Nile. Biologists say that other species have exhibited significant mortality, such as owls, hawks, sage-grouse and Yellow-billed Magpie, but there are no reliable or broad-based surveys to quantify (before and after) how bad the losses may have been. Researchers suggest that birds of prey could be particularly vulnerable.

West Nile Virus has been mentioned numerous times in the E-bulletin, including its impact on beleaguered sage-grouse populations that we summarized last September:
and

For a concise abstract of the study from NATURE, see:

For another summary see:

>>>More West Nile Virus resources

(posted 6/6/07)

to top of page

 

 

Status Update on the Planning for the Inland Portion
of the Concord Naval Weapons Station

Provided by Brian W. Holt, Senior Planner with the Interagency Planning Division of the East Bay Regional Park District

  • The Navy is no longer considering an “early transfer” of the property to a private entity, and the City of Concord is proceeding with the BRAC process and development of a Reuse Plan.
  • The City has completed Phase I of the planning process. This was the Community Engagement/Scoping process. The Phase I final report can be found here: (http://cityofconcord.org/crp/library/Phase-1-Final-Report.pdf). The Phase I recommendations are fairly broad and general, identifying an interest in preserving open space, habitat, and wildlife corridors while developing a world-class project.
  • The City is in the middle of Phase II, which is to develop a Reuse Plan and EIR. They have conducted two public workshops thus far focused on identifying potential land uses across the site and developing a range of Alternatives. The next workshop, scheduled for August 4th is entitled “Developing Conceptual Alternatives”
  • The City has released a Notice of Surplus property for the site to allow interested agencies to work with a federal sponsor to secure Public Benefit Conveyances. Public Benefit Conveyance applications and notice of federal sponsorship must be submitted to the City by Sept. 26th.
  • The City has released a Notice of Preparation for an EIR for developing a Reuse Plan on approximately 5,100 acres. However, since no development parameters or alternatives have been identified, a revised NOP is expected to be issued in September once alternatives are developed.
  • The City will be conducting an equal level of environmental analysis in the EIR on 3-4 alternatives. The Park District is advocated for a minimum of 50% in each of these alternatives to be protected as open space.
  • All of the project information released thus far can be found on the City’s project website at http://cityofconcord.org/crp/index.htm. Contra Costa Times coverage of the project can be found here: http://www.contracostatimes.com/cnws

Please feel free to contact Brian W. Holt, Senior Planner with the Interagency Planning Division of the East Bay Regional Park District at BHolt@ebparks.org or (510) 544-2623 if you would like any additional information. They are looking for as much support as they can get for the protection of a minimum of 50% of this site as open space and the establishment of a regional park.

to top of page

 

Update on Weed Removal and Habitat Restoration

by Gerald Moore - Excerpted from Petaluma Wetlands Alliance Summer 2007 Newsletter

Between February and July of 2007 we removed tens of thousands of Italian thistle plants, both by spraying and pulling. We have also removed all of the star thistle and cardoon that we could locate. The hardinggrass has been reduced in quantity by at least fifty percent. In between all of this weed removal work we planted about 1,800 native plants including creeping wild rye, meadow barley, coyote bush, wild rose, buckeye trees, and monkeyflower. In May we constructed a new information kiosk to explain the weed removal/habitat management program to the public. A new, highly invasive weed was identified in Shollenberger on 10 July. This plant, named Dittrichius graveolens, was removed by pulling on 11 July. Removal was done under the concept of “Early Detection—Rapid Response,” which is the highly promoted weed management approach by the California Department of Agriculture. On 15 July we had a booth at the Art and Garden Faire to tell people about our project.

Perennial pepperweed is a major challenge at our site and will be a focus next year. This year we established some test plots in the uplands to evaluate four different spray techniques for this plant. The results will be apparent next spring. The only effective way to deal with this species is spraying since it puts out underground runners that clone the mother plant, and any of these rhizomes left in the soil will restart the plants.

to top of page

 

Renewal of Sections of the Federal Farm Bill Are Important

by Gerald Moore - Excerpted from Petaluma Wetlands Alliance Summer 2007 Newsletter

We need help in writing members of Congress about getting the 2007 Farm Bill passed with retention of a strong Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and inclusion of the Sodsaver Program. Since 1985, CRP has maintained eight million acres of farmland as wildlife habitat (including wetlands) and is critical for wildlife. The Sodsaver Program removes incentives for conversion of native prairie to cropland. Please write or e-mail your congressional representatives and urge support for inclusion of strong versions of these programs in the 2007 Farm Bill. Both National Audubon and Ducks Unlimited support this effort.

to top of page

 

Conservation Groups Request Endangered Species Protection for Disappearing Longfin Smelt:
Another S.F. Bay-Delta Fish Population Plummets to Record Low Numbers

For Immediate Release, August 8, 2007

San Francisco– The Bay Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, and Natural Resources Defense Council today petitioned for state and federal endangered species protection for the longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), a fish that has dropped to record low numbers in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and is nearing extinction in other northern California estuaries. The groups simultaneously asked the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Bay-Delta population of longfin smelt under the federal Endangered Species Act, and the California Fish and Game Commission to list the species statewide under the California Endangered Species Act.

“On the heels of the Delta smelt crisis, longfin smelt are telling us that the problems are bigger than the Delta,” said Dr. Tina Swanson, senior scientist with the Bay Institute. “We need to take a serious look to how we are managing the San Francisco Bay-Delta and California’s other vital estuaries and comprehensively deal with known problems of reduced freshwater inflows, habitat destruction, toxics and invasive species. If we don’t, we could lose keystone species from these estuary ecosystems and the commercial and sport fisheries that depend on them.”

The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is home to the largest and southernmost self-sustaining population of longfin smelt. Populations that once occupied the estuaries and lower reaches of Humboldt Bay and the Klamath River have also declined and may now be extinct. Longfin smelt were once one of the most abundant open-water fishes in the Bay-Delta and a central component of the food web that sustained other commercially important species. Throughout the 2000s, the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population has been just three percent of levels measured less than 20 years ago; for the past four years, longfin smelt numbers have been at record lows.

“Poor management of California’s largest estuary ecosystem could claim another of our native fish species, this time the longfin smelt — a species formerly so common that it supported a commercial fishery in San Francisco Bay,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The decline of longfin smelt, as with Delta smelt, is absolutely correlated with reduced freshwater flow into the Bay and excessive water diversions.”

Longfin smelt have declined due to many of the same degraded environmental conditions that caused the collapse of the Delta smelt: reduced freshwater inflow to the estuary as a result of massive water diversions; loss of fish at agricultural, urban, and industrial water diversions; direct and indirect impacts of nonnative species on food supply and habitat; and lethal and sublethal effects of pesticides and toxic chemicals.

“First it was Delta smelt. Now it’s longfin smelt. Others will follow if we don’t watch out,” said Kate Poole, an attorney with NRDC. “Next in line are several salmon runs, sturgeon, steelhead, Sacramento splittail, striped bass and threadfin shad. Restoring the Delta for these fish will make it more drinkable, swimmable, and fishable for the rest of us – the majority of Californians who depend on a healthy Delta.”

The Delta smelt, a species already listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, recently plummeted to the lowest population levels ever recorded. The conservation groups submitted petitions in 2006 and early 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the state commission to up-list the Delta smelt's federal and state status to endangered, a change necessary to compel fisheries agencies to implement recommended actions to protect Delta habitat for the smelt. Though the state is making progress, the federal government is dragging its feet.

More information on the longfin smelt decline and the ecosystem collapse in the Delta can be found at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/species/longfinsmelt.

# # #

The Bay Institute is a nonprofit organization that works to protect and restore the ecosystems of San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the rivers, streams, and watersheds tributary to the Estuary, using a combination of scientific research, public education, and advocacy.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit conservation organization with more than 35,000 members dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.

Contact:  

  • Tina Swanson, The Bay Institute, (530) 756-9021, cell (415) 272-4501
  • Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, cell (510) 499-9185
  • Craig Noble, Natural Resources Defense Council, (415) 875-6100, cell (415) 601-8235

to top of page

 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Cheers

Excerpted from Birding Community E-bulletin - September 2007

Here’s another Congressional issue to watch. Many observers of the natural resources scene have been buoyed by recent Congressional interest in accessing the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the offshore oil-and-gas revenue “conservation royalty” intended to take investment from non-renewable resources (oil and gas) for land and habitat conservation (parks, trails, refuges, and open space).

On the books since the mid-1960s, LWCF has languished for some time, seriously under funded by Congress. The FY 2008 possibilities are real, with potential appropriations committee increases cleared by the House (a 44 percent hike at $205.6 million) and the Senate (a 28 percent hike at $182.2 million) and resolution pending. Some conservationists are calling this revival the possible “rebirth of the LWCF.”

Still, the LWCF, signed into law in September 1964 (due to the leadership of Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, Sen. Henry M. Jackson, and many others) was envisioned to be the start of great conservation effort, not the end. The program's authorized funding level from oil-and-gas revenue was augmented to $200 million a year in 1968, $300 million in 1970, and $900 million in 1977, which is the current level. (Half - $450 million - was to be used for federal land-based conservation, with the other half for stateside projects.)

Many great birding locations - refuges, parks, and forests - owe their very existence to the LWCF.

Not only has the authorized limit not gone up in the last 30 years, but also the stateside funding has been notoriously under-funded over the decades (some years there has been no funding whatsoever for stateside projects). The closest Congress came to full funding for LWCF was the House passage of the CARA (Conservation and Reinvestment Act) legislation in May 2000, with LWFC funding embedded as an essential component of that mega-bill. The Senate was not given the opportunity to act on it.

While conservationists should be pleased that LWCF is getting some “respect,” it is important to remember that this much-vaunted “rebirth” of LWCF falls far short of the full-funding possibilities envisioned as far back as thirty years ago, 1977.

(posted 9/7/07)

 

to top of page

 

EPA and Corps Issue Guidance on Clean Water Act
Definition of "Waters of The United States"

Excerpted from The CSO Weekly Report (September 7, 2007 / Issue 07.30) from Coastal States Organization

EPA and the Corps of Engineers have jointly issued a legal memorandum that interprets the June 19, 2006 Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. U.S. (known as the "Rapanos" decision). The guidance is being released to Corps of Engineers and EPA field offices to ensure nationwide predictability, reliability, and consistency in identifying wetlands, streams and rivers subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA/Corps guidance reflects the agencies' intent to provide maximum protection for the Nation's aquatic resources under the CWA as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rapanos. To ensure such decisions are made in a timely manner, the agencies have released concurrently with the guidance a Memorandum of Agreement laying out a process with specific short timeframes, when necessary, for reaching interagency agreements on jurisdictional calls. For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html.

top of page

 

 

Five Alameda Creek Fish Restoration Projects Move Forward
Fish Ladder at BART Weir Planned for 2010;
Fish Screens and Dam Removal for Lower Creek;
Barrier Removed from Arroyo Mocho

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 20, 2007
CONTACT: Jeff Miller, Alameda Creek Alliance, (510) 499-9185

Fremont, CA – Four public agencies are moving forward quickly with five stream restoration projects that will help restore native fish to Alameda Creek, the largest tributary to southern San Francisco Bay. These projects will help improve migration of the federally threatened steelhead trout, salmon and other migratory fish into the Alameda Creek watershed. These and other planned restoration projects will make up to 20 miles of Alameda Creek and its tributaries accessible to ocean-run fish for the first time in over half a century.
 
The Alameda County Flood Control District and Alameda County Water District (ACWD) this summer signed an agreement to design a fish ladder that will allow steelhead to bypass a cement barrier known as the BART weir and an adjacent inflatable water supply dam in the lower Alameda Creek flood control channel, the main barriers to fish migration into Alameda Creek. The agencies signed an agreement to fund preliminary design for the fish ladder on July 31 and announced their goal to have the fish ladder constructed by 2010.
 
“We commend the Water District and the Flood Control District for prioritizing this fish passage project at the BART weir and rubber dam,” said Jeff Miller, Director of the Alameda Creek Alliance. “Fish passage at these barriers is the key to restoring steelhead trout to the entire Alameda Creek watershed.”
 
The ACWD is moving forward with three other fish passage projects in the flood control channel. Installation is almost complete for a state of the art fish screen facility on the ACWD water supply diversion below Mission Boulevard. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) awarded $500,000 to the District as financial support for this project. It is anticipated that this fish screen will be completed in December 2007. The ACWD recently announced that it anticipates receiving a $600,000 grant from state Proposition 50 funds for installing an additional fish screen downstream on their diversion at the Bunting Pond. This fish screen is planned to be installed in 2009. These screens will reduce the potential for out-migrating juvenile steelhead or other fish to be trapped in the diversion pipelines and adjacent groundwater recharge ponds at Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area.
 
Earlier this month, Zone 7 Water Agency and the Livermore Valley School District completed removal of a concrete crossing that was a potential fish passage barrier from Arroyo Mocho behind Granada High School in Livermore. The project is intended to improve campus safety and security, enhance the creek’s environment by restoring a more natural stream channel, reduce the amount of trash thrown in the arroyo, and help potential steelhead migration through the Arroyo Mocho tributary. Removal of the stream crossing was supported by the Friends of The Arroyos and the Alameda Creek Alliance.
 
In 2008, the ACWD will remove their lowermost rubber inflatable dam from Alameda Creek to help facilitate fish migration in the lower section of Alameda Creek, and will discontinue use of an unscreened water diversion at this location. The project, which will consist of removal of the fabric portion of the rubber dam and removal of a section or all of the dam's foundation, also was awarded $500,000 from the NFWF.

The Alameda Creek watershed covers an area of 633 square miles and once supported populations of steelhead trout and salmon. Steelhead and salmon are anadromous fish, living out their adult lives in the ocean and migrating up fresh water streams and rivers to spawn and rear their young. Construction of dams, modifications to the Alameda Creek streambed, and urbanization made it impossible for steelhead to migrate upstream and eliminated access to suitable spawning areas. As a result, steelhead have been absent from Alameda Creek and its tributaries for several decades.

The non-profit Alameda Creek Alliance last month celebrated ten years of working to restore Alameda Creek and its native fish populations. The Alliance formed in August 1997 after steelhead trout in the Central California Coast were listed as a threatened species. The Alliance has grown to an organization of 1,450 members and has organized over 70 local and regional conservation and fly-fishing groups in support of the Alameda Creek restoration.
 
The Alliance continues to work with a consortium of a dozen local, state and federal water supply and land management agencies on projects to restore native fish habitat in Alameda Creek. The efforts of the Alliance have resulted in the removal of four obsolete dams and two cement stream crossings from Alameda Creek and the construction of two fish ladders to allow fish to migrate to suitable habitat upstream. One more dam removal and construction of four additional fish ladders are in the planning stages.
 
Seventeen public agencies and nonprofit organizations signed a formal agreement in October 2006 to collaborate on a study of the stream flows and fish habitat needed for Alameda Creek steelhead trout restoration. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) recently began environmental review for capital improvement projects to the San Francisco water supply system, including nine projects in the Sunol Valley. The largest of these is the SFPUC’s Calaveras Dam Replacement Project. The Alameda Creek Alliance is pushing for the project to include instream flow releases from Calaveras Reservoir to help spawning, rearing and migration of steelhead in Alameda Creek below the dam, and the removal of the Alameda Diversion Dam from upper Alameda Creek.

(posted 9/21/07)

top of page

 

Bird Conservation Through Education

On 5-8 February 2007, bird conservationists and educators met at The Crossings near Austin, Texas to pursue the following goals:

  • Initiate the development of a national bird education network
  • Highlight critical messages to be communicated through bird education efforts
  • Examine outreach to diverse audiences as a priority goal within bird education, and share successful methods for involving these audiences in bird education
  • Share success stories in bird education via case studies and discussions

Much of the action in bird conservation to date has been in the realm of improving the biological science foundation, changing national policies, and increasing the resources available.  Bird conservationists recognize that it is now time to generate concomitant action in environmental education.  Bird educators and bird education programs are widely distributed in the U.S. Most agencies, conservation organizations, bird observatories, and similar entities have extensive environmental education activities. However, there has never been a national bird conservation education plan whereby a more strategic approach could be delineated.

Bird Conservation through Education is now developing a strategy to deliver educational messages, suggested actions, and educational resources to target audiences based on regionally appropriate bird conservation priorities. The various bird conservation plans recently developed for North America and beyond have identified priorities at various geographic scales. Using these biological priorities, we can assess education needs for multiple audiences that can result in actions to address those priorities.

You are invited to become involved by subscribing to the Bird Education Network listserv.  To do this, simply send an e-mail to birdedlist-subscribe@flyingwild.org. In the text of the message, include your name, organization, title, mailing address, phone number, fax number and website (if applicable).  There is a person on the other end, not a robot.  So, you don't have to fret over the format of your request.

For more information, contact Terrell D. Rich, Partners in Flight National Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 208-378-5347 or terry_rich@fws.gov.

(posted 10/12/07)

to top of page

 

Invasive Spartina Project's Proposed Guidelines
(For Review and Comment)

The Invasive Spartina Project has produced proposed guidelines [pdf] for wetland restoration and enhancement projects for project managers and permitting agencies.  The ISP has invited JV partners to provide comments and feedback on the proposed guidelines.  Please review them and send your comments directly to prolofson@spartina.org.

(posted 11/6/07)

to top of page

 

California Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) Funding Status

WCB continues to provide funding for wetland, riparian, oak woodland, and other fish and wildlife habitat improvement projects and land acquisition (easement and fee title) from Propositions 40, 50, and 117. See WCB's website at http://www.wcb.ca.gov/ for more information. The WCB's Riparian, Inland Wetlands, and Oak Woodland programs continue, and are continuously open for proposal submission. The most recent new funding source for which WCB is responsible for administering is from Proposition 84 that California voters passed in November 2006. The most significant line items in Prop 84 for our Habitat Conservation Program purposes that direct funds to WCB programs that we could partner with include the following:

  • Forest and Wildlife Conservation - $180 million for forest conservation and protection projects that promote the ecological integrity and economic stability of managed forests and forest reserves, including the conservation of water resources and natural habitats for native fish, wildlife, and plants.
  • $135 million for the development, rehabilitation, restoration, acquisition, and protection of habitat that accomplishes one or more of the following objectives: Promotes the recovery of threatened and endangered species; Provides corridors linking habitats to prevent fragmentation; Protects significant natural landscapes and ecosystems such as old growth redwood, oak woodlands, riparian and wetland areas, and other significant habitats.
  • Grazing land protection - $15 million, all for land and easement acquisition.
  • Oak woodland protection - $15 million for habitat improvement and easement acquisition. Only projects in counties with approved oak management plans are eligible.
  • Grants to assist farmers in integrating agricultural activities with ecosystem restoration and wildlife protection - $5 million.

(posted 11/13/07)

to top of page

 

Important Refuge System Study on Visitation and Interest

Submitted by Paul J. Baicich on 12/12/07

Recently the National Wildlife Refuge System released its most recent "Banking on Nature" report, the fourth in a series since 1997. An attempt to estimate the economic benefits to local communities that result from National Wildlife Refuge visitation, the study runs almost 400 pages.

As bird educators, we may all be interested in the examination of visitation and expenditures at refuges, especially the report's new elements revealing aspects of birdwatching.

Basically, this most recent "Banking on Nature" report announced that recreational use on National Wildlife Refuges generated almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity during fiscal year 2006. As a result of this spending, almost 27,000 private sector jobs were sustained and $542.8 million in employment income was generated. The report also revealed that recreational spending on refuges generated nearly $185.3 million in tax revenue at the local, county, state and federal levels. What's more, about 82 percent of the total expenditures came from non-consumptive recreation (activities other than hunting and fishing) on National Wildlife Refuges.

Most importantly for us, and for the very first time, birding as a distinct activity was separated out in the "Banking on Nature" report for at least 66 of the 80 sample refuges that received specific examination. (Due to a lack of specific birding data for all the refuges, birding impacts were not extrapolated nationwide. One would hope that this data might be collected across the board for future reports.)
 
In an overview on the role of birding (p. 352-4), the newly released study charted sample high-volume birding visitation (i.e., refuges with more than 50,000 birding visitors per year) and high-expenditure birding NWRs (i.e., refuges with local birding expenditures of over $1 million per year). Clearly, visitors are drawn to the wonders of birds on refuges, AND they spend money on their visits. (Surveys show that NWR visitors are also willing to pay MORE for their visits than the actual costs - e.g., p.2.) What is implied is a quality learning experience, but this is not closely examined  - nor is it necessarily to be expected - in this economic study.

Still, the report summarizes that "quality birding is an outgrowth of the Refuge System's national and international role in conserving quality habitat. In fact, one-third of all Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the Unites States are located on National Wildlife Refuges... illustrating the key role that refuges play in attracting both birds and bird enthusiasts."
 
For a copy of the entire "Banking on Nature" report, see:
http://www.fws.gov/refuges/pdfs/BankingonNature2006_1123.pdf (hint: Try the "search" feature in the pdf file for "birding"!)

(posted 12/16/07)

 

to top of page

 

New Zealand Mud Snail Alert

The highly invasive New Zealand mud snail, which has spread explosively throughout the Pacific Northwest, has been found in Alameda Creek. The non-native mud snails were found in the flood control channel and in upper Niles Canyon in November. Their presence could have impacts on resident rainbow trout and efforts to restore steelhead to the creek.

New Zealand mud snails are invasive exotics that can occur in immense numbers, typically tens to hundreds of thousands per square meter. They have spread widely throughout the western U.S. since first detection in Idaho during the 1980s. They occur in a variety of freshwater and estuarine habitats. They are known to occur at several localities in California and within the nine Bay Area counties, they have been found in the lower Napa River in 2004, in Solano County in 2006, and in Contra Costa County (West Antioch Creek) this year. The Alameda Creek specimens represent their first known occurrence in the southern Bay Area.

These tiny snails can live on sand, rocks, and mud and survive in fresh and brackish water at many temperatures and in damp conditions out of water for weeks. They destroy habitat, sometimes entirely coating surfaces with hundreds of thousands of snails per square yard. They have the potential to alter stream insect populations and impact the food web for native fish. The snails can pass through fish alive, and a study found that trout fed New Zealand mud snails lost weight. See the Department of Fish and Game's web site on the New Zealand mud snail at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/mudsnail/.

No effective method of eradication has been found – our best hope is to prevent or slow the spread.

Fishermen and biologists are suspected agents for dispersal as the snails can hitchhike on wading gear, sampling nets, etc. Transportation by birds is also probable. If you fish, hike, work in, or otherwise have contact with local creeks, please get to know this pest and follow procedures for decontaminating your equipment. You can download a flyer at http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/onlinepubs/g06006_highres.pdf on how to decontaminate your equipment (be patient - big PDF file).

The Alameda Creek fish rescues will be following strict protocols to prevent the spread of mud snails - be prepared to follow these protocols if you volunteer for fish rescue or participate in any activities in the creek.

If you suspect you have found New Zealand mud snails locally, please contact Arleen Feng of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, (510) 670-5575, watersheds@acpwa.org.

(posted 12/16/07)

 

Help Prevent the Spread of Highly Invasive New Zealand Mud Snail

New Highly Invasive New Zealand Mud Snails found in Contra Costa County

New Zealand Mud Snails were recently identified in West Antioch Creek in Antioch.  They were documented in one site downstream of the City of Antioch’s Municipal Reservoir near the intersection of James Donlon Blvd and G Street.  

To prevent the spread of this highly invasive species, anyone working or recreating in West Antioch Creek should decontaminate all waders, boots, and field equipment to prevent the spread to other creeks.    The New Zealand Mud Snail is known to live for extended periods outside of water and can easily attach itself to boots or equipment where it is difficult to detect due to its small size (approx. 5mm).  

A pamphlet published by Oregon State University describes exactly how to decontaminate equipment and can be downloaded here:  http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/onlinepubs.html.

For more information or if you suspect you have found mudsnails, please call Jamison Crosby, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, 925-313-2364.

to top of page

 

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional Permit (MRP)

An updated version of the MRP Tentative Order dated 12-14-07, the MRP Fact Sheet, and an Errata sheet describing the corrections in the updated Tentative Order are available on the MRP web page at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/mrp.htm.

to top of page

 

A needs assessment for riparian bird habitat restoration and
conservation decision support tools in California

If you are involved with riparian habitat conservation or restoration in California, PRBO Conservation Science is requesting your help.  To assist with designing future research programs and developing decision support tools, PRBO Conservation Science is conducting a needs assessment of restoration practitioners, public and private land managers, and policy makers to identify research topics and informational products that are important, but currently unavailable. This on-line survey is anonymous unless you provide your contact information in the final section.

Hard copies of this survey were distributed at the 2007 State of the Estuary meeting in Oakland and the 2007 Riparian Habitat Joint Venture meeting in Sacramento.  If you completed the survey at either of these events, please do not complete a second survey on-line.  If you have not yet completed the survey, your participation would be greatly appreciated.  The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete.

You can access and complete the survey at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=44VannAIfyTseWb2YmZpRw_3d_3d

If you have any questions, please contact Nat Seavy at:

PRBO Conservation Science
3820 Cypress Drive #11
Petaluma, CA 94954
Telephone: (415) 868-0655 ext 311
E-mail: nseavy@prbo.org

to top of page

 
About Us | Strategy | Projects | Partners | Tools | Funding | News | Events | Contact Us | Home
© 2004 San Francisco Bay Joint Venture.  All Rights Reserved.

Last modified: January 7, 2008