TABLE OF CONT.=:,.....,.S

PREFACE.....

INTRODUCTION

...................... 2

... 3

...................... 4

THE SITE ..... . 4

TH=. PLANNING ?AOC'=:SS . . . . . . . . . . • • . • • . . . 7Biologic Constra:r:tS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Cultural and Eccnomic Constraints. . . . . . . . .... 9Site Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . •••.... 10

THE PLAN . •..............•..... 12Planning Concepts.. . • . . . . . . . . . . . 12Management Plan..........•................ 13Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

DESIGN GUIDELINES 21Building Materials. . . . 21Construction Techniques 2 ITy;>ical Design Solutions 22

DEVELOPMENT SITES. . . . . . . . . 27North Coyote Hills 29Central Coyote Hills ' 31Headquarters and Interpretive Center. 33Mowry Slough 35Du;ham Road. . . . . . . . . . . 37Drawbridge 39North and South Coyote Creek 41East Alviso .....................••......... 43Central Alviso ....................•......... 45East Dumbarton Bridge 47West Oumbarton Bridge ............••........ 49Marsh Istand Road Bayfronl Park . . ••........ 5 1Redwood Peninsula ...............••........ 53

PHASING & COSTS.......••..•..•..••... .. 54

DATA BASE 56Hydrology and Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Geology and Soils ..................•.•..... 58Habaa! Types : 59Critical Wildlife Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62SaJl Marsh Vegetation 63Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species 64Visual _ 65?:ojecled Land Use 66EXisting Land Use. . . . .. 67Utility Systems. . . . . . . . . . 68Transportation 69SpeCial Features and Arch:ologic Sites. .. . 70

RECREATION DEMAND ... . 72

BIBLIOGRAPHY...............•............ 77

r-\

PREFACEIn the 20 years between 1947 and 1967, 67 percentof the estuarine wildlife habitats in the State of Califor­nia were destroyed by dredging and filling, and marshhabitat in the San Francisco Bay itseif was reduced byat least two thirds. In 1850. prior to extensive dikingand filling, the total area of San Francisco Bay was near­ly 700 square miles: tdday only 435 square miles re­main. If this trend were to continue, most of the wet­lands of the South Bay would be lost within the next 10years. However. establishment in 1968 of the Bay Con­servation and Development Commission brought anend to dredging and filling of the Bay for all but certainspecial water-related purposes and. in effect. providedthe option to preserve the South Bay.

In 1968. responding to the need to preserve the valu­able resources of the South Bay, a group of citizensformed the South San Francisco Baylands Planning,Conservation and National Wildlife Refuge Committee.Tnis organization became one of the major forces be­hind efforts to establish a national wildlife refuge in theSouth Bay. Beginning in January 1968. numerous billswere put before Congress on the subject. In May 1970,the Secretary of the Interior directed the Bureau of Out­door Recreation and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and\Vildlife to carry out a complete feasibility study of theproject. In 1972, upon completion of the report, whichdiscussed wildlife and recreation values of the SouthSa.' Francisco Bay and recommended actions neces­sary for the protection and use of the area, Congresspassed PL92-330. which directed the Secretary of theInterior to establish a National Wildlife Refuge in theSouth San Francisco Bay.

This report summarizes the next step in the develop­ment of this unique Refuge. It presents the resource in­ventory and analysis of natural and cultural systems ofthe area, and a Master 'Plan for its future development.This Master Plan is presented in two parts. a Manage­mant Plan and a Development Plan.

,

3

r·

INTRODUCTION

The National Wic;;~ ::I-='(;ge System, of which the SanFrancisco Bay l"c7'craj 'Nildlife Refuge is a part, is in·tended to provite. -:-:anage and safeguard a nationalnetwork of lanes 2.:'C '.'later sufficient in size, diversity,and location to i~s:..;re the protection of wildlife of alltypes and to provice en';ironments in which man's con­tact with land and w:ldi:fe are encouraged.

In keeping with i;;is mission, the San Francisco BayNational Wildlife Refuge has three major purposes. Themost important of these is the preservation of the nat­ural resources of the South Bay. which include amongothers the habitat of migratory birds, harbor seals andfive endangered species: the California clapper rail,least tern, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, and the saltmarsh harvest mouse. The second major purpose is toprovide environmental education and wildlife interpreta­tion opportunities to Bay Area schools and residents.Third, the Refuge will ensure the protection of an im·portant open space resource and other wildlife orientedrecreation opportunities for the enjoyment of local resi­dents and visitors.

The South Bay, despite the continuing problem of pollu­tion, is one of the richest ecological systems of the re­gion, supporting a rich and diverse population of fishand wildlife. The marshes, mudflats, open water, andcertain salt ponds are prime habitat areas, since 70 per­cent of all shore birds using the Pacific flyway are in theSouth Bay some time during the year. Refuge develop­ment must maintain these habitats and allow optimumvisitor use consistent with preservation policies.

The planning and design of the Refuge consists ofthree phases: resource inventory and analysis. masterplan development, and detailed design of the facilities.This study encompasses the first two phases and es­tablishes guidelines for the third. The initial resource in­ventory and analysis included collection and recordingof naturaU~nd cultural systems data, evaluation of thedemand for potential Refuge uses, and production ofmaps summarizing the constraints and resources rele­vant to proposed uses.

In phase two, alternative Refuge Master Plans were de­veloped and evaluated according to the objectives andpriorities of the Refuge. A plan was then selected andpresented to the public for review. After this review allcomments and criticisms were studied and a more de­tailed investigation of the major development sites wasmace. From this, a revised plan was generated.

The Master Plan presented in this report establishesthe basic framework for the future development of theRefuge and provides options for change in response tonew or revised information.

4

THE SITE

The Sen ;:~a:-,cisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge com­prises 23.CCO acres of marshes, mudflats, open water,ar..:i S2!, f::C;-:£ of the South San Francisco Bay. Its loca­tion is 6spec.aliy unique because it provides a majornesting and feeding area on the Pacific Flyway withinone of the nation's largest metropolitan areas. The leg·islation which created the Refuge also established itstotal acreage. Refuge boundaries were determined bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

For this study a broad analysis of seismic hazards andhydrologic patterns of the entire Bay Area was madeand a more specific local study area of §}6,OOO acresor 150 square miles was defined. This local study areais bounded by the Bayshore Freeway on the West, theMountain View Alviso Freeway on the south, the NimitzFreeway on the east, and the western end of the SanMateo Bridge on the north.

The local study ~rea is generally flat, with gently slopingmudflats and marshes comprising the majority of thesite. The Refuge is crossed by the Dumbarton Bridge,PG&E overhead transmission lines, the Hetch-Helchyaqueduct, private roads. and main lines of the SouthernPacific Railroad. Access to the site itself is limited.

A variety of environmental conditions found in this Bayand adjoining lands are influenced by both fresh waterrunoff and the ocean. About 100,000 years ago thenorthern Santa Clara Valley was first flooded, formingSan Francisco Bay and depositing mud over the erodedbedrock. It is believed that sea lE!vel lowered againsometime after deposition of this older Bay mud, allow­ing it to harden.

The generally thicker and much softer Young Bay mudwas deposited sometime during the last 10,000 yearswhen the Bay was reflooded. This very weak and com­pressible soil underlies the entire Refuge and posesproblems for the design, construction, and maintenanceof structures, roads and dikes.

~\

THE PLANNING PROCESS

rAchievement of the dual objectives of resource preser­vation and use of the Refuge for pub:ic education andinterpretive programs depends on balancing habitatsensitivities with proposed uses and facilitites. Theplanning process began with develo;Jment of modelsidentifying potential uses for the Refuge, assessing theimpact of these uses on the landscape. and also as­sessing the impact of site conditions on proposed uses.To determine what impact(s) the site may have on use,a program for each use was developed. This programoutlines first the activities associated with each use:second. the structures that may be necessary to ac­commodate those activities; and, third, the site re­sources important to those activities. Concurrent withprogram development, a data base was identified, gath­ered and recorded.

Correlation maps were then generated which identifythe locations within the site subject to constraint. Thefirst map was the Biological Constraints correlationwhich identifies areas of the Refuge that could be af­fected adversely by the impact of an activity or struc­ture. The second map was the Cultural/Economic Con­straint correlation. identifying areas where site condi-

tiens wc'.,;ld I"crease cost of construction and operationof projected facilities or affect the safety of users. Third,the Site Resources correlation examined the site to de­termine conditions supportive of interpretive and edu­cational uses.

These correiations identified areas that 1) would besatisfactory for user development because of the pres­ence of site resources and absence of constraints: 2)would not be satisfactory to user development becauseof biologic constraints and/or cultural economic con·straints unless the constraints could be ov.ercome. Withthis information, alternative plans for the developmentof the Refuge were developed.

Each plan studied major development sites and varyinglevels of facility dispersement in terms of access, circu­lation and environmental requirements. The consultantsand the Refuge staff evaluated these plans for planningcriteria, objectives, and priorities of the Refuge. A planwas then selected and presented to the public fer itsreview at several open forums. Public reaction was re­viewed and the plan modified in response to this addi­tional information.

p~

"~PI.AH

.......... 1 \1

(WdW4~q)t-(-----­

l,?t~~87

")II

~

.•.. . .~: ..:,.",.,....~"'-...

r'~:;.:'-;.""'" ; ...~~.......::~- -

.--#~~~~:.\: ~~_ ~ ,. - ....... ;

7

,.....r

Biologic ·ConstraintsThis correlation defines the potential impact a use mayhave on a site by identifying those areas in which biotawould be adversely affected by either the activity orstructures.

If an activity or structure is proposed for an area havinga biological constraint, then the activity or structurewould have to be modified to reduce any adverse im­pact. For example, salt marshs are vital wildlife habitatswhich are popular wildlife viewing areas. New land fillfor trails and observation areas would adversely affectthe marsh habitats; however, construction of theseelements on pilings and boardwalks above the actualhabitat surface could be accomplished with minimumimpact.

The Biological Constraints correlation is derived fromseveral sources includirTg habitat types. critical wildlifeareas, and habitats of rare and endangered species.Following is a description of the major biological con·straints and the importance of each to the wildlife ofthe area:• Open Water: Bay waters in areas not exposed dur­

ing mean lower low water. The areas provide habitatsfor fish and fish-eating birds such as grebes, mer­gensers, and terns, as well as resting and feedinghabitat for diving ducks.

• Diked Marshland: Areas of salt marsh which havebeen cut off from tidal action causing the deteriora­tion of marsh vegetation. These areas are habitatsfor such species as the salt marsh harvest mouse,meadow mouse, house mouse, blacktailed jackrab­bit. Brewer's black bird, and meadow lark.

• Harbor Seal Hauling and Pupping Grounds: Mud­flat and marsh edGe sites used for resting and pup-

8

DATA CORflB.ATJONS:BIOlOGIC CONSTRAINTS

o ~ST\.C'I'NlIEA

o JrrEStHloNll!AS

0~~""""'"r;.:;q""".,­~~J~A.-S

o ~s. M,I) R,..A1$

o Wfl' WJ POC'S

B tlUW) MAIWI.NG

o Ilfft'SAIJ'PQCI$

ping by harbor seals. These areas are essential tothe continued well being of harbor seals in the Bay.

• Rare and Endangered Species' Habitats: Poten­tial habitats of the clapper rail, black rail, salt marshharvest mouse, and least tern. These areas mustbe maintained to insure the perpetuation of thesespecies.

• Nesting Sites: Major colonial nesting sites for theForster's tern, caspian tern, least tern, great blueheron, black-erowned night heron, snowy egret,great egret, black-necked stilt, avocet, and snowyplover. The preservation of the areas is essential t"the perpetuation of these species in the South Bay.

• Marshes and Mudflats: Salt marshes, brackishmarshes, and mudflats. These areas provide habitatfor the clapper rail, black rail, saltmarsh harvestmouse, vagrant shrew, salt marsh song sparrow, wa­terfowl, and other species. Marshes are the majorsource of nutrients for Bay waters.

o Flood Basin: Diked off areas subject to fresh waterflooding in winter. These areas are habitats for themeadow mouse, blacktailed jackrabbit, black neckedstilt. killdeer, and various duck species.

• Dry Salt Ponds: Salt ponds which have beendrained, providing limited wildlife habitats.

o Dredge Spoils: Areas of dredged materials whichhave developed substrata of weedy plants such ascoyote bush, salt bush, and grasses. They providehabitat for meadow mice, blacktailed jackrabbit,house mice and other upland forms. On Bair Island,a wading bird nesting rookery exists on an old spoiidisposal site.

~ rLf-L...J T~. -_.- ._ ......

Cultural and Economic Constraints

DATA CORREl.AIlONS:ClltllJRAL & ECONOMCCONSTRAINTS

o aM~:m,u,-.,."

(:Otc'n~ue~

U6~~"""".~

D ~~

e ~~10U>"""' .... 1oU){:1< Tl;J 1'0",

:mu """""""......--......,.,.".

"""""'"~r.trn.......""~rae...,..,..u ••U & 0"

•••...••••••A.C. ,

".0' ,• I O.C"

, D.O I'

• Steep Slopes: 25 percent or greater.

• Wetlands: Shallow water, mudflats, salt marshes.brackish marshes, wet salt ponds, dredge spo:ls.dikes, and flood basins.

e Deep Water: Water greater than 6 feet deep frommean lower low water.

• Existing Industrial and Commercial Areas: Indus­trial and commercial areas identifiAd from aerial pho­tos and field checks.

• Projected Industrial and Commercial Areas: Areasproposed for industrial or commercial use in futurecounty or city land use plans.

The purpose of the cultural and economic constraintsassessment is to identify land use conflicts betweenthe Refuge and surrounding areas, and to identify un­stable site conditions which may present hazards forconstruction or use.

If site conditions were considered a constraint to theuse, the extent of that constraint was examined and adetermination made whether or not it could be mitigatedby physical design solutions. If it was found that siteconditions did not impair the activity, then the area wasconsidered satisfactory for the proposed use.

The Economic and Cultural Constraints correlation wasderived from several sources including habitat types,geology, special features and archeological sites, trans­portation, utilities, and existing and projected land use.Following is a brief de.scription of the cultural and eco­nomic constraints affecting the study area:

• Archeologic Sites: Sites recorded by the Archeo­logical Survey at U.C. Berkeley and the TreganzaMuseum.

• Railroads: Main railroad lines.

• Aqueducts: Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct.

• Power Lines: Existing high-voltage power lines.

• Young Bay Mud 0-20 feet thick: Soft silly clay,:;;gh in natural water content, plastic, and highly com­pressible.

• Young Bay Mud 21-70 feet thick: Soft silty clay.high in natural water content. plastic. and highly com­:Jress:ble.

..I.''.'I,."

I \! . \

\

• --t-. •

../

_' .', I

I

\I! .r tr• •1 .- ,1.,.-.----r-.t .-r

9

OOACORREUmONSSITE RESOURCES

"E"Q.OPltiO(

~~,.,.t.'.'.I.'.'.'.'.'.'...,...,l!.••• ·_·".....-...... !'- ..~-- ·~ ..·~!:.;:.::··~,t~~t:'~ ~.0'·" ',"-~"~-~'r>.,-:- ~• • -', -: ~'M __ _ ~: \.

S..S IAA1'EO ••~' -- ~- _ '.' ••••_.... ~....'" ~-o"....,

"... -: ,... - .--:... ~ .' _.... -~,••• 'eSTeil~ -. ' , - ".ri.~ '.-- [J _"""' .......,~~-~~:?~~~~~ .-.~;.,~_: -\

'. ~ <' -. "', .t:-:-"'t::::=:fjJ'-,-.----:..c -'.. .-- , - r--;l ~""..$-.. ... .. - . -- --.. - L:..-J

'-0- '.. r:-~ "'-----.- - .'. ~

. 8 ..?:~"" ..-_; i.::..;-:-. --- .:.-<:F \ L:J=~_F;E:,."'W;OO CITY •••••;.~. '.'.'~!_.-=' "'~ __ __ __ ";.:.=~i:- "" \ r~ .........~

'.... ;-...~, . • ~ ":: ..:-----:-;;;p:; .. ~J IMAlIo~)'., ... ::- ~:,.~- ' :;;..r~~~ ~~ -.. .. r:-'

.T><IkTQOl .'. """. -:;;0, , .. --..'- ..... ::T--'=;"" I • L" J (mnoa .....

".'., - .".~..;~~ t -~. -L~-'_~ .-- -;~f··~ ~---~ ~ --..'. ....." ..... -....- . . -.' -'".;,:.. - . • r;;1~~. .. .. -'!- .- ;.----- . L-:J4l;. ""f .,; -. 'Y' t""--~,.", ...__ _ ! ~_ "'-

., Q .. " ,-..... ~ - ar:-lPALO ALTO·•• ,.= : :.;,~- ....~... -~ ~ .....- iL.J ......-s

..~: ~---o~oi _ '":._~":::~"-!!~ !'\. ~-~ • ~ (" ~'~1S ALVISO .~~. "".J 6J t ;;:;-;i.:~ u.'''-'

'.'., • - ~. - 4

4

\.,.,•••••••••••••.1. 0 .\.

'./.,•••,~. .,.,.'.. SAN Jose'.'.'.'.'.,;,:,.,.'.'.'.'

~~"=~=-__ 1974

Us.1:arr~m: NTE'OfFlSH An) WLOU"E SEiMCE

~~ T~ IICMI.

r--::-1 rtr'L..-.JL-_.'. _ .. ,_ 1_1C;IPnt

r-

Site Resources

• Nesting sites: colonial nesting areas.

.. Harbor Seal Hauling and Pupping grounds: areas',', here harbor seals leave the water.

r · Salt Marshes: habitats for clapper and black rails,and salt marsh harvest mice.

~

Site Resources correlation identifies areas where siteconditions provide major resources for interpretive andeducational uses. These areas were derived from sev·eral data sources including Rare and Endangered Spe­cies, Existing Land Use. Visual Data, and Special Fea­tures and Archeological Sites. Also, when an area withinthe site was found to be free of both biologic and cul­tural / economic constraints, a further assessment wasmade to determine the value of the site resources forgiven uses. In some cases, the areas free of constraintswere found to be of insufficient size for the use pro­posed or unsuitable because of location, and thesesites were reevaluated. The sites suitable for each ap­propriate proposed use' were identified. Terms used inthe map are defined below:

• Archaeologic Sites: those recorded by the Archae­ological Survey at U.C. Berkeley and the TreganzaMuseum.

.. View Points: those areas of elevation which provideanI overview of Refuge lands_

• Historic Sites: the town of Drawbridge and adja·Ct):1t sites in Alviso.

• Navigable Waterways: shallow and deep waterzones.

• Natural Visual Areas: positive visual foregrounds(open water, mudflats and salt ponds).

• Existing Parks: include parks, m~rinas and otherrecreation areas.

• Proposed Parks: those parks and recreation areasproposed in the future land use plans of cities ar.£lcounties of the planning area.

10

THE PLAN

Achieving dual objectives of resource preser'/at;on andpublic use of the Refuge depends upon ba:ancing wild­life habitat sensitivities with proposed uses and facili­ties. The Master Plan for the Refuge is in two parts: aland use classification plan, and a development plan de·tailing facility and circulation improvements.

The management plan divides the Refuge into zones ofvaried visitor control based on the sensitivity of differentbiological systems. For example, restricted use areasare subject to the greatest control, whereas regular useareas are compatible with higher visitation.

The development plan shows existing and planned cir·culation systems of the study area, proposed internalcirculation systems of the Refuge, and location andphasing of the major Refuge development sites.

Planning Concepts.Planning concepts were developed as a guide to the or­ganizational structure of the Refuge and to facilitate theaccomplishment of the dual objectives of use and pres­ervation. These planning concepts are:

Distribution and integration of facilities with parkand open space systems:Refuge interpretive and educational facilities will be dis­persed around the periphery of the site to assure easeand control of access from all parts of the region. Dis­persion of facilities also allows a greater degree of inte­gration between park and trail systems of surroundingcommunities and the Refuge. In this way the San Fran­cisco Bay Wildlife Refuge will become an integral partof the region's open space and recreation system•.con­tributing its own unique resources to the open spacenetwork.

The incremental building of structural systems:StrLJctu~es for the Refuge will be constructed as theyare needed. This approach will allow the Refuge staff toci;7::1e the level of development which is tolerable andr--. or necessary to assure habitat preservation and opti­mL;r:i tlse. Incremental construction shcuic help pre·

12

vent bUlld;n,;;; of fac!lities which could adversely impacta si:e by prcvid:ng opportunity to monitor the impact ofa faciiity during each phase of development.

A network of trails adaptable to changes in habitatand interpretive resources:Two types of interpretive trails will be used. A fixed net·work will provide the primary circulation in areas ofknown low sensitivity. In areas of unknown sensitivity,the fixed trail system will be supplemented with a move·able boardwalk system capable of being expanded orretracted in a given area depending upon site sensit:'/.ity and use. Both types of systems can be monitored. Ifit appears that a fixed system is having an adverse im­pact on a given area, sections can be closed arldsealed off. The moveable system can be assembled ordismantled in response to impact and need.

Interpretive displays and facilities at all Refugeentry points:Each entrance will be related to an interpretive displayat a Visitor Contact Point or a Visitor Contact Station.These displays will provide the visitor with an introduc­tion to the resources of the Refuge. Whenever possi­ble, entrance points will link the Refuge to existingparks and trail systems, thus augmenting these otherfacilities.

r

Management PlanThe Refa.;ge. con!?;,.r:; ro:..:ghly 23,000 acres, will bedivided according :;; 3egree of habitat sensitivity intovisitor use class;fica:;ons. Since habitat sensitivitiescontinually change. ;".se classifications should be seenas a starting point in :r.e management of the Refuge.This implies that as "'.:Idiife patterns change and under­standing of the nat!..:iai environment increases. useclassifications may be altered to reflect changes. Fol·lowing is a description of the visitor use classifications:

• Restricted Use Areas are fragile, extremely sensi­tive wildlife habitat areas where any site disturbanceor intrusion may be critical and potentially harmful.Visitor use should be highly controlled and regu­lated. Approximately 1.150 acres or 5 percent ofthe Refuge is included in this category.

• Conducted Use Areas are fragile, highly sensitivewildlife habitat areas where minimum visitor use maybe tolerated. Visitation should be limited to reservedconducted tours. Approximately 3,350 acres or14.5 percent of the total Refuge area is included inthis category.

• Regulated Use Areas are fragile, moderately sensi­tive wildlife habitat areas which may tolerate a cer­tain amount of visitor use. The effects of visitor useon wildlife and habitat areas should be monitoredand access regulated as necessary to maintain theintegrity of the area. Interpretive programs illustrat­ing the different ecological conditions of the Refugeare envisioned for regulated use areas. Approxi·mately 8,400 acres or 36.5 percent of the total Re·fuge area is included in this area.

• Controlled Use Areas are low to moderately sen·sitive habitat areas c.ontaining no extremely sensitivehabitats. Controlled use areas totaling approximately10,100 acres, or 44 percent of the Refuge, havethe lowest biologic sensitivity within the Refuge andare therefore subject to the fewest restrictions. Visi­tor access will be restricted to well defined pathsand general wildlife observation will be the primaryuse. Introductory interpretive themes would familiar­ize the casual visitor with the Refuge.

• Environmental Education Study SitesThese sites, located in low to moderate sensitivityareas close to minor environmental education facili­ties, will provide a field laboratory for environmentaleducation. Sites have been selected to offer' thegreatest variety of Bay environments and habitats.Use of these si~es for field experiments will be moni·tored to assess impacts and environmental change.

~ Environmental ResearchThe Re;I..;;;e staff. with approved research groupsand ;r.d;,,;:·~~ls, may conduct continuing environ­mentai research on all Refuge lands. These studiesshould provide greater understanding of the com·plex relationships of ecology and furnish input for fu­ture management and development of the Refuge.

D Wildlife InterpretationIn areas of low sensitivity, interpretive trails empha­sizing wildlife oriented themes may be open to thepublic. These themes may vary from a general intro·duction to Bay wildlife to a more detailed discussionof life cycles of certain organisms. FoliovAng is a listof some of the potential interpretive themes of theRefuge.

A Why the Refuge Was Established:The objectives of the Refuge and the issues whichled to its establjshment would be discussed underthis theme.

B Pollution and the Bay Ecosystem:This theme would interpret current methods of wa­ter waste disposal into the Bay and its capacity (par­ticularly in marshes) to assimilate wastes such as ni·trates and phosphates. ~onsideration should be ~iv­

en also to the role of plants (both vascular and fungi)in the removal of pollutants from the atmosphere.

C Diversity of the Estuarine Ecosystem:A fundamental aspect of ecosystems is that diver­sity tends to confer stability on a system. A themethat emphasizes the diverse interactions of marsh.mudflat, water, saltpond and and dike would be an im·portant Refuge interpretive program. ,.

o Energy Flow in the Marsh and Estuary:The dynamic nature of this theme requires a me·dium other than direct observation. Diagrams andother interpretive aids would be used.

E Geologic History of the Bay:The formation of adjacent hills would be explained.indicating the role of glacial period in the advan:eand retreat of Bay water.

F Endangered Species:The philosophy of the value of all life. especiallythose species placed in jeopardy by man's actions,would be developed.

G Migra~jon Patterns:This theme emphasizes the dynamic seasonal move­ments of animals. Although birds will be the most visi·ble examples. fish and mammals would be includedin this theme. The role of the estuary in the migrationof anadromous fish is an integral point.

13

H Subsidence of Land and Its Consequences:This theme would include interpretation of the signifi­cance of underground water withdrawal for agricul­tural and urban uses, with illustrations 0; resultingchanges in vegetation and wildlife.

Man's Discovery of and Impact on San FranciscoBay:The historical aspects of Western man's associationwith thp. Bay from its earliest discovery, the period ofextensive filling of the Bay, and the final establish­ment of the Refuge would be outlined, including aninterpretive story of man's slow emergence as a re­sponsible ecological force.

J Salt Production, Historical and Present:This ~ite would feature interpretation of the salt­making process from Bay waters to final product atthe salt plant. Historical methods would be dis­cussed. Where possible, remnant structures and ma­chinery might be visited.

K Formation and Dynamics of Marshes and Mudflats:This theme is part of the geological history of theBay but could also encompass a detailed interpreta­tion of sedimentation process, establishment ofmarshes, consolidation, wave action, dendriticslough formation, and migration through undercut­ting.

L Ufe in the Marsh:Ecological emphasis would be given to interrelation­ships of organisms,

M Life in the Mudflat:To interpret this habitat, cross-section displays anddiagrams will reveal the types of organisms adaptedto life in mud.

N Life on the Mudflat Surface:This unusual habitat is a thin layer of rich biologicalactivity. The salient concept is that of a microcosm inwhich certain plants, birds and animals have adaptedto an aquatic environment subject to light and tem­perature changes with the changing tides.

o Life in the Salt Ponds:The adaptions of organisms to the extreme environ­ment of high salinity would be interpreted. Although

. no; as extensive as man-made salt ponds, salt pans.~ occur naturally throughout the world. Through trips

to various ponds of increasing salinity this uniquesystem can be interpreted.

P ?Iarlts of the Refuge:The ;:.!an~s of the area and their relatic:1ships to theanimals of the Refuge will be disc;.;ssed.

14

Q Zonrg of ~/c'sh Vegetation:An interp'e::·,'e concept of the response of vegeta­rQ:1 to ti::al action.

• Habitat a:id N:che Relationships:This theme is a fundamental concept of ecology andcan best be understood by observing birds on themudflats. Numerous species are present in the habi­tat, but they avoid competition by occupying differ­ent niches.

• The Effects of Water Flow Modification:The effects of restricting tidal action in salt marsheswould be discu~sed, and subsequent impacts onvegetation and wildlife examined.

• Birds of the Refuge:The main objective would be to reveal the great vari­ety of birds using the Refuge as a feeding, resting,and nesting area.

• Mammals of the'Refuge:Dominant mammals of the area would be discussed,with particular emphasis on the life cycle of the har­bor seal and the salt marsh harvest mouse.

• The History of Waterfowl Hunting in the South Bay:The town of DraWbridge would be the primary sitefor the dev.eJopment of this theme.

Hunting and Fishing

Within constraints, hunting and fishing are recognizedas acceptable public uses on national wildlife refuges.Like all other public uses, effects on primary wildlife ob­jectives must be carefully considered..

Sport fishing will be encouraged. Generally, tidal wp·ters will be open for this actiVity. In a few instances itmay be desirable to restrict fishing actiVity in relativelysmall areas to prevent disturbance to sensitive wildlifepopulations (e.g., seal hauling grounds).

Waterfowl hunting is a traditional sport on San Francis­co Bay. and a substantial amount of waterfowl huntingstill occurs within the area to be acquired for the Re­fuge. Under existing policy and legal authority this activ­ity may continue in the future as long as harvestablepopulations exist and hunting remains compatible withRefuge objectives.

Areas to be open for waterfowl hunting .and specificregulations will be determined later. Present planningenvisions hunting opportunities in a substantial portionof the tidal area and, on a much more limited basis, incertain salt ponds. Hunting in tidal areas will probablynot require restrictive regulations. Because of antici­pated high demand, hunting in salt ponds will be moreclosely regulated and will require a permit system. In allinstances, quality hunting will be provided under the ad­ministration of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Development PlanRefuge faci/Wes will :~ ,:;oiOstructed in three phases. Anevaluation of the im;:ac! -;:>f earlier developments will de­termine the exact ex:en: and type of development com­patible with the site. ==r this reason, the developmentshown in the seccnc and third phases approximates

. the maximum for eac~ ?hase and will be refined andmodified as new information warrants. This type ofphased and monitored development should maximizeuse opportunities '....hile simultaneously protecting theRefuge environment.

• FacilitiesHeadquarters and Interpretive Center will includethe administrative bnctions of the Refuge and pro­vide information to introduce the visitor to the Bay en­vironment and its var:ous wildlife resources.

Visitor Contact Points will consist of a textual andgraphic display at entrances to the Refuge. They willprovide the .interface between the Refuge and sur­rounding areas, helping to protect the Refuge envir­onment and to improve interpretive experiences byeducating the visitor to the resources and sensitivi­ties of the Refuge.

Visitor Contact Stations are located at major en­trances to the Refuge, will regulate levels of use,orient visitors to the resources of the Refuge, andserve as a gathering point for tours. Each will containoffice space, display area, restrooms and a coveredoutdoor gathering area.

Minor Environmental Education Centers. These fa­cilities will provide utilities, equipment storage, andshelter to class groups using the environmentalstudy sites proVided by the Refuge.

Major Environmental Education Center. locatedin the southern portion of the Refuge at the North Al­viso site, this facility will accommodate larger groups.Space will be provided for two classrooms, utilities,meeting areas, equipment storage and parking.

Photographic Blinds. Portable Photographic blindswill be located at several points in the Refuge. Dueto the sensitivity of some sites. blinds in these areaswill have to be reserved in advance and used only .when approved by the Refuge staff.

Observation Towers and Platforms of varying sizewill have graphic displays of information related tothe Refuge.

Fishing Piers will be provided if the existing Dum­barton Bridge is replaced and the old approachesturned over to the Refuge for administration. The re­maining structures will be converted into fishing

piers ;n ccx:eration with the Toll Bridge Administra­tion providi!"'; access to deep water for local fisher­men.

• Circulation SystemsShuttle Buses, if developed, would run from the Fre­mont BART station to the Refuge headquarters andbeyond to the east fishing pier, providing transporta­tion for fishermen. This system would also providevisitor access to the Refuge Interpretive Center andpossibly Coyote Hill Regional Park.

Transit Tours by small electric carts could be con­ducted on a regular basis during peak use periodsfrom the Alviso Marina around the southern part ofthe Refuge. This service would provide access tothe Refuge for the very young, handicapped. andolder people who may not be able to walk distances,and to special groups during non-peak times. Thesystem should only be implemented after further im­pact studies.Bicycle trails will be developed at the Refuge Head­quarters and possibly along the transit route in theSouth Bay (if the settling of the dikes does not be­come too serious.)

Boat Tours of the Refuge will be initiated at the portof Redwood City and the port of Alviso.

Pedestrian Trails. There are three types of pedes­trian trails: open access dike and boardwalk trails,regulated access dike and boardwalk trails, andmoveable boardwalk trails. Open access trails areopen to the public whereas the regulated trails areopen only to approved tours. Sites for the possiblelocation of moveable boardwalks are also indicated.These are areas where the exact sensitivity has notbeen determined, and the moveable system will al­low testing of the impact of use on the site.

• Habitat Improv~mentProgramsExisting salt and brackish marshes possess high val­ues for fish and wildlife; therefore, the managementobjective will be maintenance of these characteris­tics coupled with improved water quality.

In other situations, opportunities for enhancing habi­tat for wildlife exist. Present plans call for returningtidal action to the New Chicago Marsh, thus restor­ing true salt marsh conditions. To provide more di­verse habitat conditions. the Knapp tract will be man­aged as a brackish marsh. This will involve further de-

.velopment, principally the providing of improved INa­ter control facilities.

Certain of the salt ponds possess high wildlife val­ues, while others (particularly the higher salinity con-

17

cen!rators} possess lower values. It wouid be desir­able to convert some salt pond acrea;;'3 to saltmarsh under habitat improvement arld -estGrationprograms. Detailed investigation will be required toexamine the feasibility ot any such conversions

Several species of birds, including tems. avoce:s.stilts and snowy plovers. nest on salt pond leveesand earth islets in salt ponds. In some instances tnenesting substrata is gradually being lost through ero­sion. In other cases rat depredations result in highnest losses and mortality of young and adult birds.Future development will include the construction ofsmall, linear nesting islands within the confines ofsalt concentrators. Typically these islands will con­sist of an earth base topped with a sand/shell mix­ture. The exact number and location of these nest­ing islands will be determined by ongoing studies.

Certain levees can be enhanced for waterfowl nest­ing by improving ground cover conditions. The estab­lishment of optimum nesting cover on levees will beessential to the habitat improvement program, partic­ularly in nesting areas closely associated with freshor brackish marshes.

18

,

DESIGN GUIDELINES

The purpose of desi;r, ;:..:c,:ilnes is to set the develop­ment theme for Reft.;.;;e ;aciiit:es compatihle with thenatural setting. Inciuc:~c for consideration are recom­mended architecturaL landscape architectural. engi­neering and graphic de5,gn treatments covering build­ing materials, constn.:c::cn techniques and typical de­sign examples.

Building materials for Refuge development are thoseappropriate for waterfront recreation type constructionin keeping with the design guidelines proposed. Treatedpilings. rough lumber, wood siding and shingles, carro­si'/e-resistant coated r.1e:ais. solar heat and glare re­ducing glass, asphalt and concrete are the primary ma­terials proposed. Exposed surfaces would be finishedin medium to dark value earth tone colors, or whentreated. left to weather. Interior surfaces and finisheswould, wherever possible, be similar to those used onexteriors. In all instances low maintenance materials arerecommended.

Construction techniques would be generally similar tomarina-ty;;e de"eiopment. Soil conditions necessitatetreating piing for most buildings, shelters, observationplatforms and boardwalks, Bolted connections and/orthreaded fasteners would be required for structural ri­gidity. Building and structural components, materialsand detailing would be standardized wherever poss:!Jleto reduce construction cosls and maintenance. and fa­cilitate expansion of facilities.

Access to construct(on sites would be by,truck, orwhere necessary due to location, by boat or barge.Both land and water-borne pile-driving equipment wouldbe required. Seasonal weather, geologic conditions andtidal conditions would account for construction phasing.

Utility lines to outlyin.g facilities would be placed on theunderside of boardwalks where possible.

;iI

I1

!!

"ii\f

I

II

I..I'"

21

II

},\

.' fI,

I'IiIi.

........

• Visitor Contact Stations and Major EnvironmentalEducation Centers are small buildings containingoffices, restrooms, display areas and classrooms (inthe education centers). The structures would be ofwood frame construction supported on piling, withwood siding and shingle exteriors. Wood deck areaswould also be provided, oriented to allow for habitatviewing. Sliding wood panels over windows or van·dal-resistan: glazing would be provided to controlvandalizing when these facilities are not manned.

• Fixed boardwalks are indicated for pedestrian andbicycle access to certain Refuge facilities and wild·life observation areas where a fixed installation wianot be detrimental to wildlife habitats. Constructionwould consist of wood decking over wood beams orjoists supported on treated pilings or precast con­crete piers. Piling would be reqUired where board,walks are over water, marsh, or unstable soil condi·tions. Boardwalk widths would vary between 4 and 6feet with height above ground varying according tosite condition, Handrails or other devices would berequired for safety purposes where the boardwalkelevation is over 18 inches above adjacent groundlevel or where the boardwalk is located over water,Bolted connections between beams and pilings andthreaded nails between decking and beams or joistswould be required,

......

"."

'."

, '0" '. ,, '

0 ......

"'.

: o·. '....-........... ."

o· .0 •.• " ~

Typical Design Solutions for refuge facilities ha'Jebeen indicated to illustrate the Refuge developmenttheme envisioned. These solutions provide for facilitiesand components constructed out of common materials.flexible in nature to permit modification,

• Visitor Contact Points will be located at Refuge en­trances providing directional and interpretive infor­mation for visitors and identifying entrance points.Information will be displayed on weatherproof panelssupported by wood piling supports, Wood-framedshelters, consisting of an open-sided roofed-overdeck, would be provided in select locations as a first­phase installation, which can tater be expanded to avisitor contact station (as indicated on the MasterPlan),

• Minor Environmental Education Centers consist ofa covered deck area, and possibly storage space forwildlife educational materials, Restrooms would alsobe,provided in select locations, Construction mater­ials and details wotlld be similar to the Major Environ,mental Center.

, ,.,. 0°

, .... -'

.:

", ", 0' ". "

, .

r

I '.I

"

'.

"

"

22

fI!"J'\

D Moveable board.....a;its :lrovide a flexible means ofaccess to wllc;,fe c: s;?r,alion points in areas wherethe precise im;:::;c:: f s:.Jch access has not been de­termined anc/or.'.-,?re shifting habitat conditionsmay occur. Movea:)!'? ooardwalk will be linked to ei­ther fixed baardwc::':s or dike trails. A modular can­s~ruction system. : :;'sisting of wood decked board­walk panels attac~ed .'lith demountable fastenings toeach other or to t;ea~ed wood piling would be similarto piers in a yacht i:arbor, with the added conven­ience of being moveab!e. Other construction detailswould be similar to the fixed system.

o Movea:>le photographic blinds allow photographingar:c 5:~'::Y Qf wi.iclife with minimal disturbance. Ofweee f~a"e :::;r.struc~ion, the biinds would be de­maunta:J:e f:lr cisassembling and change of locationwithin the Refu;;e. The blinds would be placed eitherdirectly on the ground where soil conditions permitar attached to temporary piling. The blinds would bestained or painted to blend into the color of surround·ing vegetation or background. Access to the blindswould be from fixed or moveable boardwalks or trailsystems.

~--_.__.._----- ._ ..

• Observation platforms are to be located along Ufedike trail system to allow Refuge visitors better van·tage points from which to view wildlife habitats. Theplatforms, typically constructed of wood deckingsupported by wood beams and piling, would be simi­lar in construction to fixed boardwalks.

.... ' . . '...- . , ...................................... ..... .. ,.......

......... ~ ....

.'

.'

• Signing in the Refuge will be of two types: informa­tional and directional. Informational signing denotesRefuge facilities and wildlife and environmental inter­pretive information. Typically, this information will bedisplayed on panels which can be easily modified asuse of certain areas changes. Directional signingwould indicate a sequence of observation for the vis­itor. Color, numerical and alphabetical coding will beused on trail and path markers for different interpre­tive experiences and for trail control (Le.. red-markedwill mean trail closed during certain periods). Sym­bols will be used INherever appropriate to code thesigning system. A detailed Refuge sign plan will beprepared to provide specific signing guidelines.

J e

23

• Dike trails provide a means of circulation within theRefuge aio:1g existing dikes. Since mos: of the dikesare rebuilt from time to time, a permanent type 08'/­

ing surface is not recommended. Presently a layerof dust is on the top surface of many of the dikescaused by drying and dessication of dredged baymud used for dike construction. Invest:gatlon shouldbe carried out for application of a soil conditionerwhich could be sprayed over these surfaces to con­trol dusting without affecting water quality or wildlifehabitats. The dike trails would be marked and color­coded for identification.

• Trail control is required to control and guide accessto dike trails and boardwalks. Access to certain areaswill be restricted for management purposes withinthe Refuge and to prevent public access to adjacentprivately owned land. Fences with gates to allow ac­cess for maintenance purposes and to regulate trailuse, will be the primary means of trail control. Whenlocated on dikes, fencing will extend down on eitherside to the water or marsh edge. Fences and gateswould be of wood construction with treated pilingused for vertical supports.

p .0

vti ..'

.,.~

....-

'0

• Auto circulation and parking within the Refuge willoccur on present land area only. excluding dikes. Nonew fill will be required. Owing to seltlement prob­lems on existing filled area, a greater degree of main­tenance (repairing or resurfacing) will be required.Parking areas will be visually screened by earthberms and planting, Locations of these areas will noterocroach or materially affect the wildlife habitats.

• Landscape Planting is indicated for the headquar­ters-interpretive center site and in the North Alvisounit. Trees, shrubs and ground covers typically as­socialed with these areas will be used. Planting in allother areas of the Refuge will be l:r;;ited to revegeta­tio~ of native ~lant species.

24

• Observation towers will be situated within the Re­fu·;e to prvvide the opportunity lor viewing large ex­par.sas of habitats. particularly at an edge of differenthab.ta~ types and where an elevated vantage point isdesirable. The tower would be a wood deck platformwith stairs supported on wood pile construction.

'"

".

.....'

"." .-.

• Fishing piers are indicated for both approach sidesof the existing Dumbarton Bridge, which will be aban­doned if the new bridge is constructed. By removalof the center sections the remaining sections can beused as fishing piers, with the addition of piers paral­lel to the channel, facilities for bait, food, and rest­rooms. Modifications to the guardrails might be re­quired, and wind and sun protection devices ~ight

be provided.

. --~.. -------" - ~ ,_.... --- ..

SiTE DEVELOPMENT

r'Fourteen sites a~~ ::;:;::osed for interpretive facilities'.'I;thin the RefL;-;~. :: :~i\e place :n three phases. In thefirst ohase, develcp:""'~r,;: will take place at 12 of the 14s'ltes. in the sec()r~c ::·;ase, 6 sites will be expanded and2 new sites will be :'::Jed. In the third phase, 2 sites willbe expanded.

These Refuge Ce'i&:o;ments range in scale from VisitorContact Points to a :""ajor facility like the Headquarters2nd Interpretive Ce~:er complex. In the first phase 9of the development s:~es '",i11 be Visitor Contact Points,one a major enviror.~ent education facility. and one theRefuge Headquarters and Interpretive Center.

In the second phase. two Visitor Contact Points will beexpanded into Minor En'/ironmental Education Facilities,and one Minor Environmental Education Facility will be

adce'J :0 :"':~ '/:sitor Contact Station. Two Visitor Can·tact Po:rts 3;9 aiso proposed for expansion into VisitorContact Stations in this phase.

In the third phase, 2 more sites are to be consideredfor possible expansion into Visitor Contact Stations.

The development sites proposed for the RefL;ge aredispersed around its periphery to maximize potentialconnections with parks and trail systems. The major Re­fuge facility. the Headquarters and Interpretive Center,is located just south of Coyote Hills Regional Park.This location is central to both service areas and theRefuge, and is in close proximity to major ciicu!ationroutes. A variety of observation points, connected bypedestrian and bicycle trails, will be provided.

~

!San Jose

~:; ·~~~~f;.:~~Y~~,I

IIIIII

r \ _ I

~

27

II

iI

~:, '

r

C1; Potential Moveable'~-Boardwalk· ~~

. ~

.::­~

~. S'Minor Environmental Q"tf.~ •

Education Center U· :iJ.~'e~

IVisitor Contact Point

Observation Platform -:~~.() "0)

"Q,it.

:)

"0•

0'0'0

Coyote Hills Bicycle Trail--·Y\

.0o

fj"

•a·,0

!)

o'

• 0.0

'

.0lQ'o

Q'

0'0"1J .... .

e<. Controlled Access·Dike Trail

L- .- ----1

~i\l(u~LJT-'H··- ril'!~10:.'T~F f HL:L-~~ .. fl 1 ~p--dJ'~. J..- ,l."J ~

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment Sites....., --"-"-- ----

"(',

North Coyote Hills SiteThis site will provide an overview of Refuge lands andacquaint people using the Coyote Hills bicycle trailwith the resources of the Refuge.

In the first phase this site will be developed as a VisitorContact Point. It will consist of a small observation plat­form constructed adjacent to the Coyote Hills b:cycletrail. This platform will contain graphic displays empha­sizing the fohowing interpretive themes:

• geological history of the bay

• man's discovery and impact on the bay

• migration patterns

Steps and a trail will connect this platform to the diketrails below.

Further development of this site is proposed in thesecond phase with the addition of restroom facilitiesand a small shelter at the entrance to the dike trail. Thissite is generally free of biologic constraints affectingdevelopment. Steep topography in the area accountsfor the design of facilities proposed. Site developmentand operation will be coordinated with East Bay Re­gional Parks De~artment.

;:.•. __ ....-:..n_,..~ .._~~~:!i' ....- •.,.-, ........~: ~. e::::=:::~~-.~_..-._-.--:-:.--~

~~=-~~",*<,==;;;;::-~-j~"':'~4-·::.-.~:

".

II- !

29

Coyote Hills Bicycle Trail

~CEr\iTRAt~ COYOTE raLl.SSan Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment Siteso' ,..-,0' 500' .'.~.;n...n r-I-----......:.;.

Central Coyote Hills SiteThis site will act as a gateway to the Refuge providingaccess to the dike tra:is system.

Construction would be during the first phase of Refugedevelopment and would consist of a boardwalk to thedikes. A small shelter, which would control access tothe trails. would also :unction as a Visitor Contact Point.All site development and operation will be coordinatedwith East Bay Regional Parks. This site is in a salt pond

.,1---._ ....- ,-" ~

ar.d is u:;dertain by young bay mud from 0-20 feetthick. Beca'Jse of this, the entire facility will be built onpilings driven into the mud.Access to the site will be from the Coyote Hills bicycleand pedestrian trails. Interpretive themes envisioned forthis site are:

• Ilfe in the salt ponds• birds of the Refuge

--

31

'~ '

1;----'"-' Bicycle Trail

• ~~----- •••• 1\~ ) ...~

Bicycle Trail to Coyote Hills Regional Park

l) •

Q.o

o's • G

Refuge Headquart'ers,_ ,and1",) Interpre~ive Center ~~~.

a

Q

Controlled Access Dike Trail-- •o

Visitor Contact Point'

~ "

j :~I ~-

Shuttle Bus .~_ {':

to Fishing Pier~,~. Overflow Auto and Bus Parking

. ~;:';~:, ~ ~serVice,,', .' ','" 'c':", f:,At~,iI, ,-;;":;"'Access ,(~ '2' f" ,;~' \:?:~'if~ ~,~.~~~

v;. " ". ~:.> <'- '.1, 'c' ..(

6' ,"'" -J ~_.',

'-..:..- -", ...... r .......1 fj \ lIllJ I , ''-t7"'' /-=~"!~::':' -...J" r""'>

Observa~, n::..-~~\Aut~ andlr~.~'.0Platfo,' iC';:~~p'~rk,"g' ~.'. I '. "'~

" '. ~ -::-.. ,...I •.~. •••••••. .... e;;..a{)

".~.~~... \......... ....

Pedestrian •••••Trail- .•••••........

\·•···~........II __~__Visitor Contact

Point

r

I

9

-i:l1liS-Controlled Access Boardwalk - ~

. 9

~

.~

-l .\ 1 ""="A'DQU"l'A'"R,TERS' A~'jD'," • : ' • , . ' 1· , '." ~ ,'.';;-1·..... ' ~ ,.. . ",' :. a ~:h-.' ' , 'i1. • "t

~NTERPRET~VECEi'JTERSan Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment SitesO' :>":o'!J)o) 'oeo ,...o~th ~I

n-~ ·1

.~

'. 9

• it.0

~

.0

Headquarters and Interpretive Center Site

In the first phase the COl":'bined Headquarters and Inter­pretive Center wii! be constructed along ',vith two Vis·itor Contact Points at entrances to dike trails. Also duroing this phase bicycle and pedestrian trails will be im·proved. both major parking areas developed, and ashuttle bus system established if found economicallyfeasible. In the second phase, two more Visitor ContactPoints could be developed, one providing additional ac­cess to dike trails and the other a viewpoint at the southend of the site.

A bicycle trail from Coyote Hills Regional Park will crossover Highway 84 in the vicinity of the Dumbarton Bridgetol/ booth area, through the site and south along Thorn­ton Avenue. Auto access will be from Thornton Avenueand the Dumbarton Bridge to the parking areas at thenorth end of the site. A possible shuttle bus route couldrun from the Fremont BART station to the site and con­tinue on to the east fishing pier. This pier would be de­veloped if the existing Dumbarton Bridge is abandoned.Some of the interpretive themes envisioned for this siteare:

• why the Refuge was established

• forms of pollution of the bay ecosystem

• geologic history of the bay

• migration patterns

• endangered species of the south bay

• ener;;y ';:;;,'/' ~arsh and estuary

• ci'iers,::,~, :~e estuarine ecosystem

• man's c;s~overy of and impact on San Francisco Bay

• salt production: historical and present

• life in the marsh

• life in the salt ponds

• birds of the Refuge

• mammals of the Refuge

33

Ir' Access Road-

Observation Platform

~;-;)~">~

~;>.Regulated Access Boardwalk-';)~;)'

~oI) . "'0 3 <)'313

:)""'): '0°'" "".<t>.»QGo~GO ~a ,I ',kl _ '\;r Auto and

<» \1t :'11"1,",1, 0 Bus Parking" °1" •\ll~ r-I\ 'I' i{\; I9QMinor Environmental 'Education Center----m--~ 01)

\ I \~ Visitor Contact ,.0°~ Point eO

lit 0°~ $$o 0$ tilIi) 0@ 0o (IGI Ii)~ 0G) (Io 0~ 0Q 0@ &~ %)

T "I '" •Regulated Access Dike rat --~ G:e~e00it

rw10~ftJRY SLOUGHSan Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment Sites" 1(:0' ,.')~ °fO' "'-:>'~h t....... ,--, iiL! '

~JJowry Slough SiteThiS site wiil be used for s;:>ecial environmental educa·Uon fieid trips under the direct supervision of Refugepersonnel. F;rst phase development will consist of asmall shelter and boarcwa;ks to observation platforms.

Access to this site will be through the Leslie Salt Plantand along existing dikes. For this reason all access tothe site will have to bs scheduled so as not to conflict'.'lith the salt production operation.

This s.'s,',;!! ~rovide one of the best opportunitiesfo~ ·;:e"i:ng the Bay's harbor seals. Interpretive themes\ovj:i be:

• dynam;cs of marshes and mudflats

• life in the marsh

• mammals of the Refuge (with special emphasis onthe life cycie of the Harbor Seal)

--:'-'.--=:~----"-"-----.-..~..:.: ........~._.:==.' -- ""-

-----.... ...---- - -

-

-

. ,-._'." ~. ,"

'." ..- ~_ ..,.." ,,- .-,..~ -~.._ "'

•.• ,1 ,

._... I::::-::-:-::-~ I

~:;:. ~:;s-s~:.~~~~~.~:-~-".- _ "!--.;.::::'~ I....'-.- _-

p.

-----------.-~---

--~---=----------...",,,...-'t"""o;,,.;:;.=_ ----

..... -r ..

35

-->JiC-- Auto and Bus Parkingo

o

.o

a11

Access Road---/f!J.

11oo

oo

:)

Minor Environmental~-- Visitor Contact PointEducation Center ~

a.s.

&09.

e.G.

Q

\).a.

Q

(I

ooe.

a.~.

()

iii.o

Controlled Access Dike Trail~.().

o.G.

i3.

.a.

@.(')

o

::I.o.

"9

R"OAD,..,L- --I

, D1 ';'i--l ~ An .~; :U r~;{-:lu iVa

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment Siteso -40 s..""'C:,;:." --"1'l"jO· "'ertJ"o AIrL 1 ".

Durham Road SiteDevelopment of ~h:s site is planned for the second andthird phases. D:Jrin';l the second phase of developmenta Visitor Contact Point w0uld be constructed and, ifdemand warranted, a minor environmental educationfaci:ity would be added :n rhe third phase.

Access :0 tM site would be along Durham Road withp2;i(;:g ;:r::)Vided on an existing fill area. Interpretivetherr;es envisioned for the area are:

• life in the salt ponds

o the effects of water flow modification

37

~:\' ,

Access Road --IIi~~ Auto Parking- .~~ .~

=I

'2

if

Controlled Access Boardwalk--;

-1:1

; Visitor Contact Point~I

Visitor Contact Station: ft)o.- 0 0 ..... ~.

ail) e._- • U'·ttcr ':t • G • <it-. ~ _'" 9 0 • ~.iii ().

o.e.•.

a ~

alllla ••• \t.

o.~\~~.

\.\ 0~\. ..

~\ .e

EI .. •- 0-

ttl iii ,;1'*1 •

o'i!I .0I~.

o.o.

~.•0

-0.o.

o

Controlled Access Dike Trail--~ -o.-.

=t..,-.Q.o.

I G t ~~ .~...>t iContro a e ~.~. 0 ol).~.o,

I at ·o-Gt_ o a",Q··.a.o·_ 1!1

~s"··i·; DI;':2' 211.:"*'i>!:I _ _ _~.,. 9 ~ 1:1

Regulat~ Access Boardwalk -g9~_ .. ~\1laa:- i'lIll1;iDalll••:

0-'- Minor Boat Docking Facility

5an Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment Sites

>0<>"" ....::..:1-:.00. "'C'~~ l''-, r--'f r,

:' -'----

Drawbridge SiteThe Drawbrid;~ si:e '.'IiI! be developed as a Visitor Can·tact Point in the 7rrst ohase, and expanded into a Station'.v:th boardwalks constructed around the existing oldhouses during the second phase. Auto access will bee.liQ,',ed to the north oank cf Mud Slough where parkingw:'! be provided, Pedestrian access to the town will bevia boardwaik across M~d Slough to the Visitor ContactPoint and/or StatioOi en the east dike. An interpretive

tra;! ','/il :;,') arOU:"ld the east end of Station Island withboar·::',',c::'.s coming off the trail and going between thebr.;iic:::gs, Tr.e interpretive themes for this area are:

• fOimation and dynamics of marshes and mudflats

• life:;1 tne sait ponds

• the history of waterfowl hunting in the south bay

.~. ,. l

A··>~"'· .~.,.Jp-

39

North and South Coyote Creek Sites

~These sites would be developed in the first phase ofconstruction or when pedestrian access to them hasbaen achieved by the development of the proposedCoyote Creek Park Chain. Both sites will provide ac­cess into major brackish marsh areas a:od will be de­'/eloped as V:si~or Contact Points. A trail around theedge of Newby island w::1 connect these 1''''0 sites. In­terpretive themes ;:r:)oosed for these areas are:

• energy ::'::,N: marsh and estuary

• c:':e~s::y of estuarine ecosystems

• life in ,he ;n~rsh

• life on the i:luoflat surface

• plants of the Refuge

• birds of the Refuge

A/1-_.,.. ~ I:f'

~"t'""'I .,.~ 11~.~.~ }it:

--( ~~ . .,.~ 4(-~ ..

,~

7"~,.,-I!"

~~,f)-Pl

$I~~

.:: _....~: ~....-~.', .-' ~: --

~

~

.,-~

~

~-

~..._----------- --- -~-_._--~.

__-:..,:0

.... ",.----..::----

41

~ Controlled Access Dike Trail-:).;).

().';)

(') .3 •

.l).

l).Q.

{I. .Q

ProposedCoyote CreekBicycle &Pedestrian Trail

I

"o

.ll»

o\1)

<)o

\1)

o

.e.

Q.~

g.9

-tl

tJ

-2-,;-C'ontrolled Access Boardwalk

..s

" .

-; ~:a lit-0;, 0

-a . @

D Visitor Contact Point-6~~ GOO·S·o ,.~ 0 _ \~

"~I9I .. 0 <;),~~ '1lI'1I. 13' 0 0 '

'I 'Ol~ -'0'0 ()Observation Platform ''''11$

, ~ To South Coyote Creek VoC.P.

To North Coyote Creek V.C.P.l'.Q. ",.·0

" 00

00

'; .• ·0

Controlled Access Dike TraU-..----·0" II- l».&" e"@- &'e~9'Gt· et 0 Ct '.06. ' '1

Visitor Contact Point

,

Ii,I

~Ii

ProposedCoyote Creek

Bicycle &Pedestrial)- Trail. '

~ i\JORTH AND SOUTt-"JC·OYOTE CREEKSan Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment Sites.:.- ~.....,. 5CQ 'Y~ hort!'! t

!;

\~

iii

~

"

'.

'-''''''''

, "

" ,:-:'.1..

-Aut~~:~nd Bus Parking'.'\ -."\

'"~''-1.'.",

"\,"

.,---Access Road

~E.F5r ALV~SOSan Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeOevelopment Sites~ :~o 5o..'"'C' ";00' No':;., l'n :i I

East Alviso Site

~East Alviso would be developed as the major Environ­mental Education Center of the Refuge during the firstphase. This facility wm include two classrooms w~th

supporting utilities. meeting areas, equipment storage,and office space. The site is an area of existing fill un·derlain by young bay mud, thus seismic studies of thefill in this area are '.'Iarranted.

Access wiil be from the town of Alviso with parking pro­vided on the fitI area. The diked marsh, Artesian Slough,and adjacent salt ponds wlll serve as study sItes forclasses using the area. Interpretive themes will include:

• pollution of the bay ecosystem

.. the effects of water flow modification

• energy flow: marsh and estuary

• plants of the Refuge

• birds of the Refuge

~

r

lI• II

~ ~. --- - "-'.oIi"""'---' .- > I

I ...-~ ..~~~~~: ;~:~~:~~:~~'_~:':.C:~~~T~-~~2.t;=i~~~;~lL~~ I,

. II ~~ I,tf .

~~ ~~ ~

~

43

.. ' :.-:~:..': .

. " .. ,- ... -'

.~it.1~<oc;;,.. ;.,;;ii~~,~·,r:'~tZiicL.-

'.~~"'" v..~.._.~.

. '.

.' ,

Refuge

--.:

"

., ' ..

' ..

.....,"/

,..

~'CENTRj(~L ALVISOSan Francisco Bay National WildlifeDevelopment Sites.. ..0' ~;::¢:"·-----------"1:"O,· ....fI,.

i"""L;l I I t

.."

, .

I'-.1

" .1I!I

Central Alviso SiteThe major transit emrance into the Refuge will be at thispoint. The first phase of construction will provide a Vis­itor Contact Point north of the Alviso Marina at the en­trance to the dike :ra:is. Renovation and conversion ofan existing building j~ the historic district of Alviso into aVis~:or Contact Station is proposed for the secondDnase. This facility will then be used as the gathering~nd starting point for boat and transit tours of the Re­fuge.lf the renovation of an existing structure is not fea­sible or practical, the facifity could be provided by anew building in the marina area.

Vehicular access would be from the Alviso Freewaywith pedestrian and bicycle access possible from the

SO'J!:1 2.;:'':: •... est. The major Refuge maintenance facilitywould a!sc '::;e :'~ccted in this area.

No major o:')lo;;:c constraints are .found on the site.The area is underlain with young bay mUd. however,and has been subject to flooding in the past. This condi­tion would have to be considered in development of theAlviso site. Interpretive themes for this site eouid em­phasize:

• why the Refuge was established

• historic uses of the area

• land subsidence and its consequences

... .,. ...

• __ ,. _ ~.... to ':-,- -,."-"'; ._,";;-':1'"-.-.:.;...",:~

..<.: __~ •.,~:~~';~"-'_' "_0 ·".i

• J

45

\), .

- .~~

, f; I

,'~ ,

.j I.! ::~ I

• "4 i;' I,j .

. "..:," ~."'- ..

$ -.'I)

."'0

Shuttle Bus Route

~.

o

.o..,

.-

(}

D'

. '

- .''D

, () -

o I)

a..()

Stairs to Old Bridge

Pedestrian Access to FishingPier

0._, Controlled Access Dike Trailo.

e

~

. ;,,j

ijI

"............... _-.:.~ . ~

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment Siteso = ><>C' ''''/0 NO"h.li'.iL-~L...__----' I

r- East Dumbarton Bridge SiteThis site would be developed only if the new DumbartonBridge is constructed and the existing approach turnedover to the Refuge. De'/elopment during the first phasewould be of a Visiter Contact Point and stairs leading up

"to the old bridge.

Access to this site ""ouid be via shuttle bus. bicycle, or

wal;':in,; The ;Jri'nary function of the site would be asa shGwe :JuS stop. Interpretive themes for this areawould be:

o why the Refuge was established

o life in the bay waters

r-

.~

~"._~..... ....

" .

~.,

,.," .

'.

\~.~

...~ .,::,

. .-====--=l~-----

_..--

""Y

"Y-

r./

..... "

-- ..--.-.~,,:",/

........

-""7-"

"~

47

Pedestrian Access.dY----

to Fishing Pier

Proposed Dumbarton Bridge

I _c:

.G

"G

.o

<9.__Controlled Access Dike Trail~.

(I

Auto and Bus Parking ---"L

(IT,J'/-~---ExististingDumbarton BridgeW.4iY..&I~/

DU~j18ARTONBRJDGE

o

o

o

G

o

o

•·~·o

o·

.0..

'0

. . .o

.e

Minor Environmental ·0

Education Center "0 Observation PlatformIS I "IIo Observation Platform-GCO()~

• . I 0: 0 •

Visitor Contact Station G.'Q'G

ProposedFrontageRoad

San Francisco Bay Natior:al Wildlife RefugeDevelopment Sitesf"L~t» = . ·'t No<," t

'"I1)

~ ·CJ·I

;,

·9·I 7II IfI

I 0

~

\;Vest Dumbarton Bridge Siter" This site '....ould be :e':eloped in phases one and two. If

the new Oumbartc~ Sricge is built, phase one develo;J'ment would inctuje a Visitor Contact Station con­struc:ed adjacent t::i the dike on the edge of the brack·ish marsh. This facility would act as an entry point intothe Refuge and as an aid in the supervision of the pro­posed fishing pier acti'.:ity on the old bridge. Parking forbs,h Refuge visitors and fishermen would be providedC'..:r;.,g the new bricge construction. If the new bridge isnot bl::lt. phase one cevelopment will consist of a Visi­tor Contact Station with limited parking next to the oldbridge on an area of existing fill.

In either case, the phase two development would bethe addition of a minor environmental education facilityon the marsh side of the dike.

Access to this site would De along a frontage road withthe new bridge, and by poo,e existing bridge road if nonew bridge is built. Poten:ial ;Jedestrian access couldbe provided from Marsh Read Sayfront Park to the siteby improving and ope.ning certain dikes to public ac­cess. Interpretive themes envisioned for this site are:

• man's discovery of and impact on San Francisco Bay

• life in the marsh

• endangered species of the bay

• why the Refuge was established

• migration patterns

49

, '

..... ~' •..J

Proposed Trail to Dumbarton Bridge

Visitor Contact Point~ I

\III

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment Sites, no) sc~ '~ ... c I'ilQrt" AiL-: I

Marsh Road 8ayfront Park SiteThis site w::i b9 ce'/e!oped in cooperation with the ci,yof ~,,~en;o Park as a Visitor Contact Point in the secondphase. A small $,19:t9: will be provided at the high pOintof the park overlool<.:ng Greco Island, This facility willcrient visitors to t~9 resources of the Refuge and thejr,1portance of the Say to both man and wildlife. Accesst~ the site will be along pedestrian trails from the park­ing areas. O:her $;;;:$ and additional interpretive dis­clays could aiso be orc'.ided along the marsh edge atthe base of !;,e ;-:ii:s.

1~:9r:re:'. e "er:;es emphasized at this site will be:

• .,.-:c,'s :::;s~overy of and impact on San Francisco Bay

o er':aar.ge~e.j species of the bay

• why the Refuge was established

• migration patterns

--'-~ -----.;::---

, -....: "" ,\

.~ .;':_j,.-~~:i~"':··"L·

"'~-'

-:. ,-

51

I~

IIiII

Observation Platform

Minor EnvironmentalEducation Center

I

)c:,0

,1)'">--Controlled Access Boardwalk~,Q .

n...,,'o'~'~--- Visitor Contact Point

Proposed Redwood Shores Bicycle Trail-~~I

~ 1

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife RefugeDevelopment SitesC :-rJ" 100· '::':0· pwe,:".Ii'f'1...Ji! .1 I

Redwood Peninsula SiteThis site is proposed for development in the first andsecond phase of construction. In the first phase a Visi­tor Contact Point with boardwalk access will be con­structed and in the second phase expanded to a MinorEnvironmental Education Center. Development will in­volve cooperation with the State and Redwood City.

The facility will be constructed on pites on the ,=:;;e of

the marsh. Access to the SI,e \'.. ::~ :;e provided by p~;:es·

trian and bicycle trails aler:; ~'l;: c;ke on the ncr:r-':;'nend of Redwood Peninsula l:-,:o:?';xetive themes e;,.;:~a­

siied at this site wi!: be:

• endangered species Of t~-= t,ay

• life in the marsh

• energy flow: mars~ a;-;': estuary

53

PHASING AND COSTSDe'leloprr.ent of Refuge facilities is planned in threephases with each phase of two years' duration. As indi­cated in Table 4, major facilities, including the Interpre­tive Center and the Refuge Headquarters and the Ma­jor Environmen~al Education Center are planned forconstr~ction in phase one. In addition. tt'",~ boardwalkand dike trail system will begin and the majority of visi­tor contact points will be constructed. Habitat develop­ment including marsh restoration and nesting islandcons,ruction is also schedded for the first phase.

Phases two and three will include the smaller facilitiesto be located throughout the site, along with expansionof the boardwalk and trail system and extension ofroads and utilities.

54

~.·2;;:" ?sb;e "aci:ities would be available for public useafter t~e :r5: : o?2.r of construction. Location of these fa­ci:ities thrcugnout the site in the first phase would pro­vide the gre3test benefit and accessibility for Refugevisitors. As major construction is planned in the firstyears of Refuge development, minimal disruption ofRefuge activities is foreseen during laler phase con­struction.

Estimated construction costs for Refuge facilities totalapproximately .~~·";:3 million (in 1974 dollars) to bespent over the three phases. Roughly one half of thistotal will be spent in the first phase and one. third in thesecond phase. Costs shown on Table 4 would have tobe adjusted for annual increases in construction costsand inflation.

~ i;

Tullio J\

REFUGE FACILITY PHASING AND ESTIMATED COST

·~

Phaso 1 Phase 2 Phase 3FacllilY Quantity Unit Costs TOTALS

FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 FY 1980 FY 1981' FY 1982

Visitor Conlacl Points 12 S 30.000/ea. (5)$150,000 (4)$120.000 (2)S 60.000 (1)$ 30.000 $ 360.000

I Vi~ilor COlll~cl Shttiolls 4 10D,OOO/ea. (1) 100,000 (2) 200,000 (1) 100,000 ·100.000

MlllOf EnvllOnnHmtnl 5 40,OOO/ea. (2) 80.000 (2j 80.000 (1) .10.000 200.000

(lIlIc-nlin.. (;011101

M:l!or r:nvlrnllfllontnl 1 300.000 (1) 300.00 300.000l"llur.a!lo" C{llIlttf

nt,tllqo 11r~(l(Jql/l\llnrs& 1 500,000 (1) 500,000 50,000 550,0001/110rl'rollvo CcU!lnr

FI5hlng Pior5 (. ) 2 lump sum 150,000 150,000 300,000

Boardwalks 9,000 S50/linll (30%)135,000 (30%) 135,000 (10%)45.000 (10%) 45.000 (10%) 45,000 (10%) 45,000 450.000Iinfl

Dike Trails 1~O.OOO S 5 /lin ft (25%)150.000 (25%)150,000 (15%) 90.000 (15%) 90.000 (10%) 60,000 (10%) (iO,OOO (iOOOOO

lin II

Bicycle Trails ·1,400 S 9 Ilin II (50%) 20.000 (50~o) 20,000 40.000';n/l

Roads 11,000 $1~, ··111111 If,O....,,199.000 (20%)33.000 (20%) 33.000 Ifi5.000Itnll

Jlnhitllt Dovolopmont hUlIl' ""11, (!)(),~,gI200.000 (50%)200.000 100.000 !'no.non

Mailltonltnc~ Fndlltlo~ IlIIlll·~lml 11~,OOC ~lO,OOO 1Ii",OllO

lJlllitio5 & Si10 l)ovolopRlonl lump sum 350.000 150,000 100,000 100.000 ~O.OOO l!lll.OOO

Fiscal Yonr 101.,15 :',ono.ooo '766.000 928.000 465.000 39!".ono lorl,non_..............._- -- --- ._-.. - _.._--------

PhilSO TOlnls $ 2.n117 ,000 $1,393,000 $ ~,(l1) ,noo $4,780.000'---._---_...._... - .. ,.- ..... ._.. "' - - .__.----- _____._••.__.6. __•••• _. .. _.,......,. . .__.. _--...- _._-_.....~_._---_ .~____ .,___"'_0 ~ ..... ',_ ••___4 __'·.--_

atOl Nolo: Numhers 11l1)nlonth(l54tli rnlnr tn IUIIUhcH ollndllUofl f(1(.uhod or porc(lnll1l1o of cUlllihucUol\ 'or UDClII yotu.

• To hn eorol ~hnrod with Toll I'lriduo Aclmlnllihnlirln,

DATA BASE

The following environmental factors were consideredin the first phases of this study: Hydrology, Climate,Recreation Demand, Geology and Soils, Hao:~at Types.Critical Wildlife Areas, Salt Marsh Vegetation, Habitatsof Rare and Endangered Species. Visual Character. Ex·isting Land Use, Projected Land Use, Utility Systems.Transportation Systems, and Special Features, H;s~cric

and Archaeologic Sites.

Each environmental faclor was recorded in a wr:t!en reo

port and mapped at two scaies, 1 Inch equals 1 rr;'eand 1 inch equals 2.000 feet. The complexity of ,he :::2.'la and level of necessary detail determined the sec';; 0:mapping.

Not all data groups were mapped. Hydrology. CL;:;£;te

and Recreation Demand data are more regiona!i::: c~i·

ented and are discussed in text form only. Fo1ic\''';~; ;sa summary description of each data group and its ;~:::0r·

tance to the Refuge p!anr,ing precess:

56

---- - .._-------

Hydrology & ClimateThe waters of San Francisco Bay and the adjoining Baylands function as intermediaries betweer; frest1 waterrunoff and the ocean. The major hydroiogl::: fectors con·sidered are: runoff and flooding, tidal asoe:::ts and cir­culation, tsunamis. siltation. ground water. G,,:j existinoand proposed flood control projects. -

Runoff and flooding - Ihe total watershed a~ea drair;.ing into the S'an Francisco Bay in the vicinity of the Re·fuge is about 1,500 square miles with three majer c"ain­age tributaries. Alameda Creek, Coyote Creek. aile theGuadalupe River. This watershed is highly regulated byreservoirs that capture water for supply purposes, Thesubsec;:..ent diversion and percolation of the water re­duces the natural discharge from the drainage chan­roe!s into the Bay.

The Wildlife Refuge is located in a flood-prone area ands:.;bstantial damage to some of the salt ponds in thesouthernmost areas could result in major flooding.

Ti~aJ Aspects and Circulation - In the study areafarge expanses of mud flats appear at mean lower lowwater, and remain exposed for about one-quarter of anaverage day. Only deep water channels remain open tonavigation. •

D...e to the large area of the southern Bay combined\',"th its rather small drainage area. flushing by local run­C;T .5 thOught to be limited. (Major flushing is therefore,:":-9 result of water that enters the Bay from the rest ofthe estuary system.)

Tsunamis - Tsunamis are long-period waves usuallycaused by underwater seismic disturbance, landslidescr vc:can;c eruptions.

A 100-:. ear tsunami wave runup height wouid be aboutthree feet at the north boundaries o'f the Wildlife Re­fuge and one foot at the south boundaries. For this rea­son it can be concluded that a 1DO-year tsunami enter­ing at the Golden Gate Bridge would not cause substan­tially hi,~her water than the highest estimated tides ofthe area.

Siltation -~San Francisco Bay is a natural depositoryof water-borne sediments resulting from erosion of thesurrounding land. Approximately 80 percent of the sedi­me~t entering tile Bay annually is from Ce:-.traJ VaHeydraInage and the rest from local stream fiow. Sed;;nentdeposition is a major problem in the So uth 52,', \'."f:h afuture of complete siltation in terms of geolc;;: ::-e,

Ground Water - The ground water bas:r:.:; ;-":ia"':"'E-:::aCounty have been subjected to long-te~;:::, ,:'c;;:::--:which has resulted in saline water ;ntr-.;s~:" :'c- 7:-~

Bay. Ground water basins in Sa":a Clc.m: County hc;'.salso been subject to some sa:.'.a:er intrusion. Hc·.·.··ever, the major historical pro:"e:- 2'",0 the 0:"'.& \.:,~ ...: ~'""e

most serious poss.b!e future .:-::':2!!0:'1S. is la~d s~:s,·

dence, Because of this subs:e-·ce :he Alviso ,:'rea "'cSdropped about six feet in E:e.2:0n durina tf;e :2.5: ~2

years. Since 1968. sutls.::e::ce has '.';rtua:", :'o?c",stopped in the area because extensive ground\';a~cr reocharge projects have beer, j:7l~i6mented. Howe'/er i:-_creasing population c7 t'"",e area may necessitate ;:"",­creased withdrawal of ~roundwater, thus initjati~; cnew round of subsidence.

Flood Control Projects - Existing plans to pro'. '==flood control in the Bay lands such as major channe· C"

levee relocations could impac:t the Wildlife Ref~:e,

Even though proposed protection schemes eXist,-atpresent there are no known approved and fL.; ,:::edplans to construct any of the alternatives.

Climate - The climate of the study area is one of :;;:!dyear-round temperatures. heavy winter rain, and sun­mers characterized by the morning and evening coastalfog and little or no rain.

Because of the prevailing ...,'esterly winds from the Paci­fic, over which the temperature varies very little fromsummer to winter, winters are mild and summers arecool. On about five days a year, when northeas:e':,;winds have overcome the prevailing westerlies, Ce.~­time temperatures may reach into the 90's or 100's, .

About 90 percent of the total annual rainfall is receivedin six months, November t~rough April. In the wint€-f.the study area is subject to night and early mor,,:-:::fogs, particularly afte~ ~ :-=~';:d of rain when s~ies a'~clear and the air damp a-: ~:;::

Winds of the study are.: :;'€ predominantly from thewest or northwest, avera;;'"":; sx !o eight miles per hcurin the winter and early SO";'),;;. aid increasing to an aver­age of 10 miles per neur ~rO:",":'.:)'·1 :'!rough July.

In the summer the emire S?::":'sa is subject to fre­quent inversior,s. These occ_~ ,..."" ",'1 the ceol a;r mO·l­

ing in frGm t~e ocean slides :r:::er ::ie warmer a;r. ferc·ing it cpward, The warm air a::s cs a I;d over the cafArea. trapping the pollutants c~:. eSDecia!ly i;'l Ii",eSouth Bay. producing smog. T~e ;:;:·St obvious result Of

this condition is the general:y re:'..Jc€:d 'J:sibihty in t!'",cstudy area throughout the sur.:7"sr :":":8:itns

57

EDAW inc. 1974------::;,::=.':"':=:.-

Geology ~nd SoilsSan Francisco Bay is flanked by low-lying tidelands andalluvial aprons which spread out from the surroundinghills. The Bay and its surrounding lowlands lie within anorthtrending structural depression in the earth's crustbounded on the east by the Diablo Range and on thewest by the Santa Cruz Mountains, outcroppings of theur.cer:ying Franciscan formation bedrock. The bedrockis overlain by relatively young, stream-laid deposits ofsa:-,j, gravel, silt and clay. stiff and soft muds.

. .....~ .

- ._-~-----~---------=.::_::;;;._:::.::_:--....~,-

58

DATA BASE:GEOLOGY

Thick deposits of the weak, compressible soil knownas young bay mud underlie virtually the entire Refuge.The mud poses difficult problems for the design, con­struction, and maintenance of facilities such as rcads.dikes, and buildings. Although no active faulting is likelyto take place within the bounds of the Refuge. the ef­fect of future large earthquakes centered on nearby ac­tive fault zones is likely to cause substantialloca! dam­age because of the weak soils underlying the area.

Habitat TypesTh~ Sll;dy has been segregated into 14 habitat typesbased primarily on the physical nature of the substrate.The major categories are recognized by the relative pre­sence or lack of water. Those with aquatic aspects areeither tidal or nontidal with further distinction based onthe combination of physical and biotic attributes. For ex­ample, marshes along Coyote Slough are influenced byfresh water to the point that they are best designatedas brackish marsh rather than salt marsh. Salt marshesoccur throughout the remainder of the Refuge area. Inacc~:on to the natural habitats, man's activities havecreated several habitats that did not previously exist.The 14 habitats which are described include the follow­ing: Salt marsh (tidal), Diked marshland, Brackish marshI:i:al), Mudflat (marsh edge to MLLW), Shallow water,~,1L.LW to -6 feet), Deep water (-6 feet to deeper),','ist salt pond, Dry salt pond. Dredge spoils (ruderal),:'-:e. Flood basin (marsh· l"uderal), RlIral, Urban, and=:1.

Salt Marsh (Tidal) - The r.cst conspicuous charac­te~ist'c of this habitat is ~ne marsh plants. The substrateis ~.s..;al:y waterlogged fine-grain sediments with a largec;ay fraction. Starting s:i.;:t"':ly below mean tide level, thishabitat is usually term:rated by di:<es on the high end ofthe marsh.

~ Ar.imals present are ti':-:: salt marsh harvest mouse. mea­:0'.'1 mouse. va;;ran! shrew, clapper rail, and salt marshsco:g sparrow. The r.;a;or vegetati0n types are low

shrub or perennial plant growth, dominated by sale·to:·erant species such as cordgrass and pickleweed,

Diked Marshland - In a few places around the Bay,marsh plants are found in areas not now subject to thetides. Animals are meadow mouse, blacktailed jackrab­bit, Brewer's blackbird, meadowlark: and sometim~s

salt marsh harvest mouse. Vegetation consists of le.·/shrub growth with some exotic grasses as ground co/­er. Cordgrass is specifically not found in these areas.;

Brackish Marsh (tidal) - This habitat type is veri sim­ilar to the salt marsh but is distinguished by the pre­sence of salt-tolerant species frequently found in freshwater marshes. One conspicuous addition to the saltmarsh vegetation is the bulrush in the brackishmarshes along Coyote Slough. This habitat type is a;soat about the same tidal elevation as the salt marsh andshelters similar endangered species: salt marsh har­vest mouse and clapper rail. Animals present includeyeltowthroat, song sparrow, redwing, and fongbilledmarsh wren. Low to moderate vegetation of both salt­tolerant and fresh water plant species. (cattails andbulrushes) comprise the dominant vegetation of thishabitat.

59

H.&\BITAT

VEGeTATION

URBAN3R;'CKISH DRY

M,.l.RSH I DIKED MARSH I-'S'-A.;::.LT'--P_O•.:..;.N.::...DS::-rl ~~"'l

~;.,.. : .. .,.,~, .... :J '10~.':"" .. I' .~'....~.,J.. ..-ell •• .., .." -" :?Co_, h •••••'.., ..~ rt,e.. , •

• 0<';;1 .. ~ ••• '; t .. .J.

..;'.­.lI~"'~. OJ'

YeUNG BAY I

'-----

",.....7

--~L•

----- ,- ..~.....w ... _Ovt.

...... "

:.:..:~~V.,-~:l."auU •••"" •••"

, ALLUVIUM·

•• r·.t ~ ...1;..' .

!too.. ...r--.. --.......... -.

GEOLOGY

DOMINANTWILDLIFE

Mud Flat - The mudflat habitat is one of the outstand­ir,~ L'ilique attributes of the Fieluge area. This type isc-:'ined as those lands between the lower edge of themarsh (or dike) down to mean lower low water (MLLW).These flats are exposed by the low tides and serve as avital feeding ground for the multitude of shorebirds thatfrequent San Francisco Bay. These birds feed on a vari­ety of invertebrates in the mud and then must find rest­ing sites elsewhere when the tide comes in. When thetice :5 out. shorebirds. such as sandpipers, willets andav:>:ets are present. When the tide is in, diving ducksSLlcn as scaup and canvasbacks feed in this zone alongwi~:-J fish species such as the starry flounder. Vege­t::::on of the mudflats consists primarily of algae and:::atoms.

Shallow Water - This habitat type is defined as those::'eas between MLLW and r."nL;S 6 feet. with MLLW as:e':> datum. The upper ec;e :;; t;,is habitat is occasion­;:'.;:1 uncovered by the low t:::95, however the major por­t:J:'l :5 always covered bi 2: :east a few feet of water..:..: aOQut the minus 6 fe=::: ~:~c;r the Bar bottom typi­ca:;;. ,jr,:Jps off rap:dly ir:to ::ee:J water. Due to the dy­~ar;-.: nature of the r:::a: ','. erers o'/er this habitat the bi­:):a afe probably not ;re2.:iY different from the two adja·cent habitats. Nur.:er:i... S small fiSh s;:ecies such. assi7''?It. an:ho'ly and '.'2': '.:5 s;)eces Of percr, aiong with;'s~·eat:n; birds s;,:c..-: as ;"ebes. r.1er~arsers2:ld ternsa;~ domir.ant in !t'e a~~2. While not fish·eatlng divingc..;cks make hec·.:; :..;se ~t :~is type.

Deep Water - This habitat type is defined as ti":cseareas with water depths greater than 6 feet. With ~"lLl'::

as datum. This habitat, including the main channels o'the Bay. is of considerable importance to the larger f;s~

and mammals of the Bay. Indicator ~pecies are lar~e

fish such as sturgeon. striped bass and sharks. andharbor seals. In addition, waterfowl may raft up dur:i'1gcalm weather. ,.

Wet Salt Pond - This habitat type varies as the so:arevaporation process continues. However, when dikedoff. these waters of the Bay have certain characteris·tics in common. They are relatively shallow permanentbodies of water with considerably less turbidity thanthe shallow tidal waters of the Bay. As the 'tiater 'r1'

creases in salinity. a whole new assemblage of or;a~·

isms assumes dominance and many such ponds na':eunique wildlife attributes. Grebes, shove!er. rudd:;duck. white pelican. phalaropes comprise the indicatoranima's c' this habitat.

Dry Salt Pond - At present 'some of the salt pondshave ::e,,;1 pumped dry or have evaporated to a drysrat<? co~s,;tuting a unique habitat. If they have con­siderable sa.!, deposits. such as gypsum, they aremeager Ir. the i1fe they support. Lower salinity pondsmay be ra:he' ruderal in appearance ("ruderal" refer­ring to a p:a"t community dominated by "weedy" spe­cies both na!:'.e and non-native). Certain dikes sur­rounding these ponds provide nesting sites for the en­dangered species of least tern, Indicator animals of this

60

OAlT r-'iDS .__-+_--:SA=L::...T_'.:..;"~:.:..:·R..:.::s:;,;H'--_-I-_...;,;M..:.::u:::o.:...;FLA=r__-+l...:s:.:.H:;..A:::L""LO:;.;W-,--'J...;,;I:'.:...;i.::;ER,--.~ -=-OE::.:E::.:..P.-:.;W.:..;I%T.:..;E::.:..R'-- -1

I;AII(;.... ,.~ ••. ;:o.ca..i._ljl:o ...e .:.;; ...,..~ , ••":., •• •... t ~••:.,. • ..·"1,'011Il1'O_'"

~~ .....~'1l...............~pt.,~ ~ II"

......"..-- . ......0 ......

r--l>__--'

....-q -:'

... .....".. ~.

/' ..:~

r

habitat are least tern, killdeer, and, depending on saltcor.:ent of substrate, plant life may support meadowmice and meadowlarks.

Dredge Spoils-Ruderal - In a few areas within theRefuge dredge spoils have been placed on land provid­ing suitable substrate for a variety of weedy species ofplants. Coyote bush, various species of saltbush andgrasses have invaded these areas thus developingcommunities that possess wildlife value, such as isfound in the wading bird rookery on Bair Island.

Dike - In order to establish salt ponds, numerousdikes have been built in South San Francisco Bay creat­ing a habitat type that provides two major assets forwildlife. Dikes are used as nesting sites for varioustxdS such as avocets and terns. They are also vital rest­in.;: areas for shorebirds when the tides cover the mudfla:s. They rarely have veg,.etat!on on the top surface::>ut :heir slopes may support ruderal and marsh vegeta­ton that is important to the survival of the endangeredsalt marsh harvest mouse. Other birds that use leveesfor rest;ng and nesting place include willets, sand­p:pers. gul.ls, marbled godwits, and snowy plover.

Flood Basin - Diked off areas subject to fresh waterfiooding in the winter define this habitat. Indicator ani­mals are the meadow mouse. blacklailed jackrabbit. var­ious cuck species. blacknecked stilt, and killdeer. Vege­tation is a mix of essential fresh water marsh speciessuch as ca~tails and sedges and the weedy species ofthe ruderal community in between wet depressions.

Rural - Areas of low density development devotedprimarily to agricultural uses. Orchards, row crops. andpasture land with a scattering of structures are typicalin these areas. Indicator' animals are the mourningdove, meadowlark, Brewer's blackbi~d, sparrow haWk,cottontail, blacktailed jackrabbit, and striped skunk.Vegetation of the rural areas include fruit trees. rowcrops and pasture. ~

Urban - Residential commercial and industrial areaswith a high degree of vegetation alteration and removal.Wildlife types present are those tolerant of intensive hu­man activity. Brown towhee, mockingbird, house ~inch,

English sparrow, starling, and roof rats are the primarywildlife of this habitat. The exotic cultivated plants ofthe urban area range from lawn grasses to a variety ofshrubs and trees.

Fill - Recently filled wetlands not yet devoted toother uses make up the fill habitat. Where a mixture ofdredged spoils and other fill have recently been depos­ited seme weedy species grow, but generally it is a bar­ren habitat.

61

~

' ... !"-~b-LI

Critical Wildlife AreasCr:ticai wildlife areas are best defined as sites in whichthe impact of human intrusion would destroy the biolog­ic h..nctions of the site.

In this study two types of these critical areas were iden­tified within the Refuge: harbor seal hauling and pup­ping grounds. and the major colonial nesting sites.

The harbor seal hauling and pupping grounds are areasin which the harbor seals leave the water to rest and

DATA BASE:CRITICAL WILDLIFEAREAS

~CENF.RALl.L-J snJr7Y AREAf'Al HARBOR seAL HAl.'WNG~ AND PUP!'!NG AIll::.S

~ NESr.»G SITESFT· Fos~ers T~CT'~"'" 7cr"LT ·Leasl 7"",8H. Groal E>A !'1e<cnII .HotQnE • Egtlll51 'St,11A -A.,ooeolSP'Snowy~

rear their pups. Minimum disturbance of this em Iron­ment is essential to the perpetuation of these se~!s !;1the Bay.

The colonial nesting sites of the area are extremely vul­nerable and must remain secure from intrusion by man.his domestic animals. and any other mammalian preea­tors. The sensitive period for these sites is generallyduring the height of the nesting season from March toSeptember.

i, I~lr ,

_. _ +- __.....::::-;-...-.~ __ .h.........~._. --~:'::. . _~,.,0. - .,~=:--,. r-;.~.

......."'-~~ .. _ -.:.....,... .._. _·~-;'2~:~·<r- ...~ .. ..,--...~""~~.- .... -::~

'0 ••~~~~J:;£:,~.:'+--:_~.~,

--. - . ~~~.. ~:.:. -~. " of

-- "-~

i

'.~<j

62

Salt Marsh VegetationT~: sait marshes of southern San Francisco Bay are re­c~Gn;zed as a highly valuable natural resource. Theya~:? t~e habitat of rare and endangered species of wild­E~e and provide the basic food for myriad forms of fish,invertebrates and wildlife. Their role in pollution abate­ment is indicated by preliminary investigations of the im­pro'/ement of air and water quality in the San FranciscoBay area and by studies elsewhere. Based on studiesin eastern states, their life support value may approxi­mate S80,OOO per acre.

Mar5hes are unique wetlands in that, unlike swamps,the'.' contain no trees. Salt marshes are further uniquein ,hat not only are their plants hydrophytes (water;Jiants) but they are halophytes (salt plants) as well.T~us they must be able to tolerate having their roots~:>! only in permanently waterlogged soils but also in5: is which have relatively nigh conce~trations of salt.'r particular, pickleweed (Saiicornia pacifica) illustrates:-:e capacity for tolerat;ng salt concentrations as high2:S a!Jcut 7 percent in the s:>;

The other major salt mars~ ;:,;art is cordgrass (Spartina::,::sa), Cordgrass is i'.J! 25 sall tolerant as pickleweedas it gS:'1eraHy phases eL! at a!Jout 3.5 to 4 percent sa­:'r,'ty. Moreover, it has c~"'spjcuo'Js aerenchyma (air tis­s',;'?) that enabies it tJ sass air from its leaves to itsr~ots, This type of :5s'.;e is common to many other~arsh plants, Ap:Ja~e"'::Y This enables such plants toc::.~ry Oil vital rcot fc;~:::;ons in a soil very low in oxygen.I~ fac:. it is pro=-a::::~ t:-:a! cordgrass roots actually aero

DATA BASE:SALT MARSHVEGETATION

[-·'l ....... w...... '-.~. ....,~)

r-;-l~ .l~ (",,,,-u. aI_:J ,.... "OO'llI~J

[-c-] \.CJtl,f"'''''''$4~:oriI"'.... --..••1

ate the mud soil, enabling other marsh organ:s::-:s !~

grow there. The presence of aerenchyma enables :ilecordgrass to grow at extremely low tidal ele'/a~:Ci".s.

namely as low as 2.2 feet above MLLW (Mean LcwerLow Water).

In addition to these two dominant and common saitmarsh plants. there is a distinctive 'salt tolerant grassknown as salt grass (Distichlis spicata). This grass ismost often found in the saltier and higher elevations bL:tis spottily represented throughout most of the marsh.

In addition to these three major representatives. thereare about 25 additional salt marsh plants commonlyknown in the south San Francisco Bay marshes.

The Salt Marsh Vegetation Map delineates the HighMarsh, Mid Marsh and Low Marsh zones of the Refuge.

Lower Marsh: Areas with a vegetative cover of greaterthan 90 percent cordgrass.

M:dcle Marsh: Areas with a vegetative cover of bothcord;i2ss and pickleweed with neither dominating.

Upper toI.arsh: Areas with a vegetative cover of greaterthan 90 percent pickleweed.

One of the uses of this map will be to identify the habi­tat potential of any area of the Refuge for the two en·dangered species clapper rail and salt marsh harvestmouse. according to the percentage of cordgrass orpickleweed.

63

DATA BASE:HABrTATS OF RARl: &ENDANGERED SPEOES

~.","' -I.", i rtf-t..-.J____ • _ ...._1III;Ir.'1oI

Habitats of Rare and Endangered SpeciesP'ere are four major rare or endangered species whichir.:;abit the Refuge: the clapper rail, the salt marsh har­vest mouse, the black rail, and the least tern. The clap­per and black rails are found primarily in the lower andmid-marsh zones while the salt marsh harvest mouse in-

habits the upper marsh and possibly some of the c'-;edmarshes. The least tern has been known to nest insome of the abandoned dry salt ponds and the habitatshown on the above map is a pond which has been anhistoric nesting site for these species.

,I

iIr ...1 ----'

64

=-""-~ T. """"'--- i:.rL-J'-_._ .... I .....~

_..e:JAWinc. 1974--~---::=--.:.=.=-;:. -

Visual

DATA BASE:VISUAL

r.n GENERALLL.J sruov AREA

8J MAJOR VISUAL••• ORIE."lTATlON FEATURf

• LINEARSPCT( ...... te.d)

OO~I~POIHTIS] POWER UNES

MAJOR v:su:.LRESOURCES(torground POtential)o 3ii>~~;R A....D

~ MARSHES

m WET SALT PONDS

~OIl<!OMAASHEQ] COYOTE HUS

T:-:9 visual character of the different regions of the study~ a~=2. '5 determined primarily by the type of foreground

d~g to the flatness of the site. In most parts of the Re­fuge the middle ground and background have little im­portance as visual elements. There are areas or pointsof higher elevation, which are extremely important asthey provide better views and allow the visitor to seethe relationships between different habitats. This israrely possible when walking through the Refuge. Theterr::s used on the map are defined below:

• Major visual orientation features: those which areciscernible from a I~rge part of the site because oftheir size or unique character which help to orient the·Jisitor.

• Linear features: existing road and railroad bridges.

• Spot features: Coyote r-;,iis. Leslie Salt Plant. Mof­fet Field hangars. storage silos. and the proposedMarsh Island Road Bayfrcr:t Park Site.

• Major view points: aje2.S n:;;;her than the surround­''1; area which p:'Ovice ::~:ad views.

• Power lines: ex:s::r;; r-.;;: ·/oltage pewer lines.

• Major visual resources: areas of completely or pre­dominantly natura: '.:3 .,;<?i character.

65

• Salt Evaporators: diked ponds used in salt oro·duction

• Residential: land primarily devoted to dwelling uni~s

• Public: schools, dumps, and sew~ge treatment ra­cilities

• Airports: county, military, and private

• Industrial and 'commercial: all retail/wholesare.professional, service, and manufacturing areas

• Undetermined: lands with no proposed use

r

,.,..

r"

,.;~~.'U'~'~'.'~_U·~-~:~~~}r,:~~;~.r:'·~t~~~·

·'",,;-1

EDAWi"= ~=~.: ..:=~':-::' -­..,. ....us. OE?tCFn£~RSH »D WI..OlF'C: sa:MCE

"""'":' -- rL:l.-J T' , ~ t-, •__ tlCIII1'N

Projected Land Usen'e ;JfJjected land use data are syntheses of existingci:j' ar1d county plans. These plans were reviewed withap::ropriate planning agencies to determine validity.'vVhen conflicts between plans were found, the latestdocument was considered the most valid source.

Major changes in land use patterns shown in the pro­posed plan are the expansion of parks in the southernportion of the study area and the conversion of most ofthe ex!sting agriculture and undeveloped lands to in­dustr:al uses.

In the future, most of the Refuge will be adjacent to in­ctJs::"lal or park areas.' For this reason it is essentialt~ r:taximjze the positive entrance aspects inherent in:'- a park lands. Following are the land uses shown ont::-: map:

• San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge: pro­posed boundaries

• Park and Recreation Areas: city, county, commer­::ai. and regional paiKs

• Marshlands: gener.a:·:~,j boundary of salt and~:,ach:sn marshes

• Open Space: lane ;:~,::oosed as open space in pfansfor the area

• Open Water: Sa;! Fra~cis~o Bay

66

*• _ ~J"

DATA BASE:PROJECTEDLAND,USEr71 GENERALl£.J STUDY AREArwR1 S.F. Bt.Y NATIONAl~ WILDllFE FlEFUGErp1 PARKS AND~ RECAEArrON AREAS

GJ MARSHLANOS

~ OPEN SPACE

[2;] OPEN WATEili

o SAlT eVA?OflATORS

W RESlDCNTIAI.

~PUBUC~ AIRPORTSr:-1 lNOUSTF.&Al.L!...J AND C~IAl.

~u~~

~-=-- .~:~~:;:~:-- -~---=

EDAW ir>e. 1914---_.--:~.::..=. ...--=. -

~.,... T,~,,-, n.r-L....J-_. -"".- I_~

Existing Land UseThe existing land use data were compiled using airphotos and were field checked to determine the accu­racy of the designations.

Within the Refuge the dominant land use, in terms ofarea. is salt production and the facilities associated withit. Adjacent to the Refuge are areas of agriculture, un­developed land, and industry. The land uses delineatedon the above map are:

DATA BASE:EXISTINGLAND USE

~., GEtialAl.LLJ STUDY AREArp1 PARKS AND~ RECREATICH AREAS

~ MAFIS'1LANOS

~ OPE!l WATSlo SALT EW,XlflAr'OAS

[;] AGRICUL':'URE

o RESlOENT\Al

~PU8UC

• Flood basins: overflow basins flooded during rdghstream flow periods

• Undeveloped fill: recent landfills currently vacant

' .. ,-.

,.• Parks and recreation areas: city, county, regional

parks, marinas, and commercial recreation areas.

• Marshlands: generalized boundary of salt andbrackish marshes

• Open water: San Francisco Bay

• Salt Evaporators: diked ponds used in salt pro­duction

• Agriculture: orchards. rew crops. and pasture

• Residential: all land pr:m2riiy devoted to residential

--...~":.,;,i:io~I:;S;:;:;E _~ 4

use

• Public: schools. dumps. sewage treatment facilities

• Airports: county, mil;tary. and private.

• Industrial and commercial: all retail·\vholesale,professional, service anc manufacturing areas

• Undeveloped: land not in current lise

67

9-'<l- T.;-- r:;~__' . _.-. ._1ICI"nI

DATA BASE:UTILITYSYSTEMS

[Z] G£NERAL 51\10'1' AREA

~ SUBSTATION

rz:I EXISTINGILJ TRANSMISSION LINESr::-1 POTENTI.l.LL.::.l TRol.NSIoII~ UN£S

G VACUlT RIGHH)PM't

B AOUEOUCT

~ SEWAGE TR!:ATMENT~ PUN1 OIll'FALL

(1. ptilMty 2-secondary)

Utilities Systems

f --

, ,

• Vacant rights-o'-way: Transmission line rot.;tes r:~:

currently in use but still controlled by PG&E.

• Aqueduct: Hetch Hetchy aqueduct.

• Sewage treatment plant outfalls: locations wheretreated sewage is dumped into the Bay. Primarjtreatment refers to waste from which solids havebeen removed. Secondary treatment rerers to wastefrom which solids and most suspended particleshave been filtered.

~. ~~~ "

. l ~.::

';' .'., (: .'.

f ( ".

, i

'f

.. ­, .

..'.':.'

; .; ~ ., ~

I - \. \• I• - I, .

• Substations: Existing :-:-:ajor power substations,

• Existing transmission lines: PG&E high·voltagep·:>'.ver lines.

• Potential transmission lines: Routes currently be­in:;) studied by ?G&E for new transmission lines.

-.r.e :e-~s used on the roe: ~re cescribed below:

'-;""e Utilities Systems map depicts existing and poten­tiGi :ransmission lines, aqueducts, and the location ofse.....age ouUalls within the study area. The sewage out­fails of the South Bay may be abandoned if proposedplans of the East Bay and South Bay Dischargers topump the sewage north of the Dumbarton Bridge areapproved and implemented. The object of the plan isto pump the sewage to an area of the Bay more easilyflushed by tidal action than the South Bay. The waterQuaiity of the South Bay may be improved through thispla'1. but some of the brackish marsh habitat whichexis:s at present would be destroyed through the re­duction of fresh water' flow into the South Bay. Thee:evated walkway system used to reach the transmis­~'on towers are an important site resource, providingex;stiiig structures which could be used for access:: wildlife observation areas. The sewage treatment;:iants outfalls are significant because of their existingaid potential impact on the quality of the Bay waters.Besides being a source of poiiL;:ants, the sewage out­fai!s are aiso an important s~ur-:e of fresh water inflow.

68

DATA BASE:SPECIAL FEATURES &ARCHAEOLOGIC SITES

[ZJ GENER...l STUOl' ARE.\

[£] ARCHAEOLOOiC SlTE

!2J HISTORIC Srn:

~ EX1Si>r.G PArKS

CJ PROPOSEO~o EXlSTtNG MAR:"l.l.S

o PROPOSED "'....="Jo,.l.S

g PROPOSEO ,RoSolLS

Special Features and Archaeologic Sites

S:~c'ai features are areas of potential importance top':.:?cted Refuge activities that have not been ade­c; ...a:e:y represented within the other data groups. Thiscategory consists of eXisting and projected parks, ex­isting wildlife preserves, and proposed trails.

Historic sites provide a unique educational resource forthe Wildlife Refuge. This is especially true of a refugewh::h is located in an intense urban setting. These his­t~'c resources can show the important role man haspl::/ed in determining the character of the Bay.

Byrc:lusion within the Wildiife Refuge, archaeologicS,E5 may be subject to the direct impact of construc­,::'1 of roads, paths, and other facilities, and the indirect-:;:act of improved access a~d consequent increased;:~:)itc use of the area. It is also important to note that:-e Archaeologic and Historic Sites Map only indicates- -::m archaeologic sites and all of the undisturbed-?·S~1 areas and slo-.;gr.s :::r.::ering on the Bay may::"':a'n olher sites.

• Existing and Proposed Parks: Dcrj'Jed from exist­r;; crd projected I£F1d ...3= ;na;)s.

• Existing and Projected Marinas: l;lcludes eXistingS':;?5 and currei1~ly Gch e ~ropcsa!s

r · Historic sites:1 - T:--,e to"','n of Drawbridge2 - The old ;Jort of AI'.lso

70

3 - Moffett Field dirigible hangar4 - McCubbin's Landing5 - Jagel's Landing6 - Guth's Landing7 - Mountain View Landing8 - Clark's Landing9 - Nelson's Landing

• Commercial Parks: Marine World

• Existing Wildlife Preserves: Palo Alto Bayl;mdsPreserve

• Proposed Trails: Pedestrian and bicycle tra:lsshown on county and city plans.

• Archaeologic Sites: Known archaeologic sites asshown on the archaeologic survey.

Transportation7'e tr:::nsportation map shows existing freeways andr.2;:J.'" arterial thoroughfares trClversing the study area,a'"::i aii hard surface and unimproved roads within theF.;:~;e itself. Airports, railroads, existing and proposedc~.:;es, bus routes and rapid transit are also included.

Several changes to the transportation network servingthe study area have been proposed or are currently un­der consideration. There have been proposals for twoadditional freeways: the South Bay Freeway from Al­viso to the Nimitz Freeway and the Shoreline Freewaywest of Newark paralleling the Nimitz Freeway. Bothpr:J;:)Qsals are now inactive due to the changed trans­portation needs and priorities of the area.

Extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART)into San Mateo County has been under considerationf~r some time. The original Rapid Transit Commission?Ian of 1956 called for a complete loop around theS:J~th Bay. However, the earliest a San Mateo County2~:ension could concei'Jab:/ be buill would be in ten/ears. and it is prob:::ble t~at if any expansion takes;:'2,ce it will not be within t::e ~ext 20 years.

A r:ew Dumbarton Bridge. para::el:ng the existing struc­1'...,0. has been propos",d ~'Y construction in the near

;~e major shortcoming of the study area's transporta­teil system as it affects the Refuge is the lack of ade­Quate access roads t:. the site from freeway and fromlroe SOt;thern Pacific Rai!road.

Fea!ures shown 0:1 the n:a;) are identified and definedbelow:

DATA BASE:TRANSPORTATION

• Major existing freeways: U.S. 101, the 8aysic~a'

SR-17, the Nimitz; 1-680; and SR-237, the M0:":~:='·:­

View-Alviso Freeway.

• Hard-surface heavy-duty roads: Major tho~·'J...:::h·

fares carrying heavy traffic loads. -

o Hard-surface medium-duty roads: High use resi.dential roads within the study are~.

• Unimproved dirt roads: Roads on dikes and le/eesproviding access to salt ponds; currently not LJsablein wet weather. ~

• Proposed Dumbarton Bridge: A high-level four'!anebridge paralleling the existing low-level two-!2"ebridge with widened approaches and improved or reoconstructed connections to SR-17 and U.S 1O~.

co Railroads: Southern Pacific Railroad main lines

• Existing bus routes: The A.C. Transit bus se~ .icewhich is to begin in the city of Fremont in 197.iand the Santa Clara County Transit District busservice which will be in operation in the latter partof 1974.

• Proposed bus routes: Proposed routes of the SanMateo County bus system which wi!1 be imple­mentad in the 1975-1980 period.

• Airports: Existing public and private airports includ­ing Sar.:a Clara County Airport, Moffett Field air field,Fremon~ A:rport, Sky Sailing Airport, and San MateoCounty Air;)ort.

69

RECREATION DEMAND

An investigation w'=~ Gade to project the types of rec­reation activities s;.:i'~::J:e for inclusion in the Refugewhich would aiso res;:md to the unmet recreationneeds of the region. R€:creation demand was estimatedfrom recrea~ion part~:sa:ion rates (the number of daysper year a g:'1en pC;:J'..:!a,:on w:ll participate in a particularrecreation acti'Jity) aooiied to existing and projectedpopulation within the Refuge service area. Participationrate-s used were derived from the Bureau of OutdoorPecreat;on and Californ:a Department of Parks and Rec­reatIon cata.

S:;;~jficant changes have :aken place in the living stand­ards of Americans since r.:t.;ch of the data were generaated. bringing a probable end to the constant increasein prosperity and leisure tr;e experienced during the1960·s. Certainly, the ra:e cf :~crease can be ex­;;ected to slow, and with lr.·~a::cn. and increasing worldresource scardty, the ex;:ans;on in incomes, leisureti~e and ability to travel may je reversed. What thismay do to recreation habits anc preferences and how itmay. in particular, affect the Refuge, is hard to predict.Tre copulation is becoming better educated, and witha ~roNing consciousness of the need to live some­wt;a: less prodigally, there may be a marked increasein the use of a c1ose-to-home nature and wildlife­orier:!ed facility.

For these reasons, conservative rates arl'd projectionsadjusted to social and economic characteristics andtrends are used to give a range of possible demand.Two activities which will be particularly significant in theRefuge - birdwatching and wildlife photography­were not covered in earlier surveys. An attempt hasbeen made to derive reasonable per capita participa­tion ra:es for major socio-economic groups and to ap­ply the increases projected for comparable activities.Local Audubon Society' chapters were also contacted!:) provide a check.

T~e most important activity contemplated for the Re··~;;e. apart from its primary function of preservation, ise:"vironmental education. Environmental education<;;:-:ong adults and children is relatively recent and is ex­pa~di:1g in scope and concept. N::> standards thereforeexis: by which demand can be measured. An indicationof l;-;e current extent of such programs and eontem­;:\a:90 expansion does. roo·Never. provide insight into;;otemjal demand.

Tne ~olential tolal recreation demand for activities is so~reat lhr;t the major prcblems in planning the Refuge lieir. balancing competing interests according to the capa­bility of the different sections of the Refuge.

72

Serv;ce Area s - The majority of Wildlife Refuges inthe United 5:2.:95 lie outside major population concen­trations. Tha location of the South San Francisco ~a­

tional VVi!d!:fe Refuge. within one of the fastest gro':,;ngmetropolitan areas and adjacent to another, gives it sig·nificance beyond its primary function of preservatic:"I asa regional open space and recreation area. Further, itcan potentially supply purely local recreational opportu­nities because of its location adjacent to communitieslacking local open space.

The service area of a regional park is normally consid­ered to be within one hour's travel time. San Francisco,San Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties arewithin one hour of the Refuge. Parts of Centra Costaand Santa Cruz Counties also lie in this zone but '.'liB beless oriented to the Refuge as a regional open spacethan to closer parks. The four-county area is thereforeassumed to be the major service area. The area is div::::­ed into two parts, particular attention being given to :hecharacteristics of the primary service area - the eGG­munities adjacent to the Refuge, or close by.

A third service area represents the specialized interestin the wildlife observation and research opportunities of­fered by the Refuge and is assumed to include coun·ties within the two-hour time zone of the Refuge witnlimited visitation from elsewhere in California and tneUnited States.

JUlyl .;.. ,'~ "

1960 I:, ~ H50 1990 2000

:.~~-o?~~ 912.6 ,'... . ~. ~ :)' 1.352.0' 1.520.0 1... -.-3<~" :ra:,c,sco 741.5 7 ~.l'; -.2,3 3 7064 3 688.7 3

:..;.. '''3:-:~ 449.1 557' .: -: . ~ ~ ~ 677.1 4 719.4 4

S~-:~ C·a:"3 658.7 1.07~ . . ;2' 0 1.591.0 6 1,837.0.6

-.: -':'L 2.761.9 3.~2: : : .:-:.: .; 4.3365 4.765.1

'.',' - 148.8 207 .: ::;32 5 2654 5 2934 5

~ :.-:~ .:-._= 85.1 12': 1 '77.2 5 227.8 5 277.1 5

C:· - :::·:5:a 413.2 559 ~ 5521 5 780.9 5 90355

Ce..:". 15,863.0 20.0250 22.659.0 5 26.098.0 5 29.277.05

~ s.:-'.. r:e:

r

If"'"\

Population - ~~a;cr c~anges have taken place recent·ly in the birth ar.d :-n;gra::cn rates in Cal:iornia. Table 1re;:;~esents what are felt ~c be the most reasonable ofc;,;rre,.t projectio;"ls \'''~e'e no recent local projection,r:as ~een ;i;ade.

Table 1

POPULATION 1;60 ,l.~i) ~ ;;0 AND PROJECiiONS TO 2000CalilCr:1;a :i:'lC 3e1~tedCounti!ls

, ';';)0'5)

Stale of Calilomia Department of Finance2 Alameda County Planning Department;; EDAW,lnc.4 ABAG "Low·South"5 Slate of Califomia Department of Finance, Series 0·100" Santa Clara County Planning Department

Potential Recreation Demand - Estimates and pro­jec:;ons of recreation ;:>articipation rates prepared bythe S:ate in 1965 and 1973 for the San Francisco-Oak­lane and San Jose metropolitan areas were applied to,is 1970 population and projected population of the::~r counties comprising the primary and secondaryse-r..,·ice areas. The resulting range of recreation de­-=~d in participation days in selected activities is found:-. Table 2. The first group of activities are included for~~'erence. Some "walking f:lr p:easure," as opposed to:;a:t;re '.valking," may be co;;e in the Refuge. The re­

,,"a:~i;'1g activities are a'i2.iia::ie ~:ose by the Refuge and~;:i1 be related to in teres: '.. :,-e Refuge even though:- e, a:-9 l:i<ely to be incc:-:-;:a:,ble with Refuge purposes.

i=-.::'- 1970, the primary service area cities were ar·rai.ged in three grot.:::;s according to their income, ageane racial character:s::cs While these are not the only'actors influencing ;ar:c::ation in a given activity, theya:e particularly s:;n,':car:t indicators. For each group,acjl,;sted pan:c:pa::.Jn ra:es were applied to the 1970

;)C;::~::::::'1 T:-e resuiting total participation days for the;:,ri";;2,rl 2.-:0 seoondaiY areas are found in Table 3. Itshot,;id ::e ro:ed, however, that the socio·economic dif­fererc:?3 in t~e primary service area population are in·sign:t!can! ""hen figures for the entire service areaare totaled.

Table 2

ESTIMATED RECREATION DEMAND FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIESFOUR-COUNTY SER~ICEAREA 1960-1980

(In Millions 01 Participation Days)

1960 1970 1(;00

Low HIgh Low High

Walking 66.06 81.06 9358 99.:.: 1 ~ 375Picnicking 12.93 1724 17.61 ISS ~2 53Camping 5.66 7.73 821 799 ,: 51Horseback Riding 2.49 3.25 431 -.., ~ ~2"'.0,Salling 097 1.37 1.81 162 : 32

Nature Walks 5.91 7.52 7.18 9.1 : ;- 3~Bicycling 14.61 2090 29.45 2S 52 ~~ ~a

Hunting 1.52 1.61 1.44 1.7.: • 22fishing 7.82 9.68 10 12 1027 ~ :: ;.:.Hiking 3.09 5.13 6.53 0.37 --Bird Watching 3.54 4.38 458 576 : =~Nature Photography 1.10 1.37 144 167 .. S.:.

LOCAL HIGH RECREATION DEMANDFOUR-COUNTY SERVICE AREA

1970 1980% Instantane· Local' Instantane- Local

Summer ous Summer Demand ous Summer DemandDemand Demand 0·1 hour Demand 0·1 ~c..r

Walking 23.3 218,000 164,000 279.000 20~~CC

PicniCking 48.5 85,000 41,000 109.300 525COCamping 52.2 4.600 2.200 5.500 ,':: ....".,)Horseback Riding 44.6 19,000 9.000 25.000 ~ 2':C:Sailing 58.8 10.600 5.100 13600 e,s(>,:

Nature Walks 23.8 17.000 8,200 22.200 ~ :'.7JCBicycling 39.5 116,300 87,000 48800 '" ~: .eC:'JHunling 10.7 1.500 700 2.000 ~ e,CGFishing 47.8 48,400 23.200 61.8:;0 29,-::Hiking 68.3 44.600 21,400 57.0C0 :-:- .:.:.:.!3lrd WatChing 10.0 4.600 2.200 e:,:C' 2 ~CO

Na!ur<: p.,otography 238 3,400 1.600 ': ..1~IO 2.1CO

The second part of Table 2 gives the level of primaryar:d secondary service area demand in. the selectedactivities which Can be expected in the Refuge andother !ocal recreation areas at .any one time on an aver­age summer day. These figures are based on a formulaused by the California Department of Parks and Recre­ation in projecting the need for day-use facilities. How­ever, in order to prevent overuse, attendance at the Re.fuge will be regulated according to levels of use appro­priate to site conditions and facilities provided.

73

Tabie 2 sho'....s :r:e ;:er=entage of total demand for eachactivity dur:n-;l ;~e :h-ee s'..!:r:mer months and is based011 the avera,;e ;::er,:er.rage of recreation days whichoccur within ons f::J:;r's ari'/ing time. It should be notedt~a; these figures E:r€: :nsed on statewide j 965 dataa:1d do not re'lec~ c:;7e~e'iCes in climate. preferencesa"c neeeS i.. the Say Area. Little detailed data is avail­a~le on which to base acj:.;s~ments,however.

Recreation Supply - ='forts ware made to inventoryexisting facilities ',v'::-::n ::-;e service area to determinethe extent of unsat:s;"ec ::emand. Howe'Jer. inventoriesare incomplete and starcards for comert!ng acreageor miles of trail into ca=2-::::;': or use data are few. More­0',;9r, the quality of ex;::er-s!"ce in ~he Refuge cannot bec:..;plicated elsewhere end ::-'8 existing or latent demandfer its unique quality is !:-:ere':;re :-:ard to measure.

Table ::

LOW E~T1MATEDRECREA7:CN DeMAND 1970PRIMARY SERVlCE AREA

':.:r>:e ::-5 ;,:. ~~:;jry data and available standards are in­C':::'l"::is'e. a ~'Jt;~h comparison can be made of supply3:'l:i :e;":"3": f,:;r horseback riding, hiking and streamf!s~:;jg. Or these activities only hiking will be available inthe Re;~,;e. Only 40 percent, or 244 miles, of the 593miies 0; ;:;~.:ng trail needed in the service area in 1970havs bee=- pio\,'iced.

For the remaining general recreation activilies, the Vol­ume of potential demand. particularly in the light of thedocumented deficiency of total regional recreationspace, seems clearly to indicate that Whatever new fa·cilities are opened to the public will be used neav:ly.

TotalParticipation

Days(Millions)

~=

S~r.lmer

Demand

Instan·taneousSummerDemand

LocalDemand0-1 Hour

~.... ~. i; 29.11 23.3 68.000 32,600r :-.:-.-; 6.25 48.5 30.000 14,400C~-:'~; 2.94 522 15.000 7.200i-':';~:ac~Rrding 1.32 ':4.6 6.000 2.900Sa::ng 0.53 53.8 3.000 lAOO

~;"::;'eWall(S 2,50 23,S 6.000 2,900S,=,c1ing 8.10 39.5 32.000 15,400Hu:":ting 0.58 10.7 600 300F'5!"l;~S 3,55 ':7.8 17.000 8.200H'.~~ 1,74 683 12,000 5.800E': ..... :~,.':l;l 1,55 10.0 1,600 SOO~;..:_•• :>"ctography 0.47 238 I.COO 500

LOW ESTIMATED nEC?EATION DEMAND 1970SECONDARY SERVICE AnEA

Tc:alPartici;.Ja::cn -.

Days S_~;:'"!er

(~,,~:H:C"5; :~~a~d

Instan·laneousSummerDemand

LocalDemand0-1 Hour

.. ; 52..::: 2: ~ ~n':(;'J 58.600:. . ':. ... ~; ~ ~

.,: .:.: ~ 5':.:CO 2600:)::.-:."; .. 52 2 3,:)CC I.~OO- .-:.r~-2::r.::-; ... ;;l;i'~:~'; Z -,: -- '" ~OOO 4,000S~ . :'::- 55 S 5 au: 2,4':;0

r- .. :~_~-? '.". e'· 3 .: - 2:: S 12':'::J 5.30::l

- -, : . ~ . ::: 3~ " :3 ':~ I':~:' 25AOO- _.... ,.. : -- 1(; i , ""l."'--' 500- ~ ~-"=:- -- ':78 .300C·J ~4ACO

:-: -,;:-:; 22 68.3 nee::; ,1,C,JOE.o~:: ·:,,~'a~::r..::g E.3 W.O 3.0C'v 1.400~.,;a:urePnotogra~r·i s: 23 5 2.COQ 1.000

74

.' .. "-

-...,,:.

_.. ;. .

" ... -

, ..."~

- - ':.;J

-------------

. , .' ~.•...--- .

.'-' <•••• '. ?~ •..~..

75

·i _,..'

r- 1

76

~

~

r-

BIBLIOGRAPHY';J:'.PT!':;~; ,~; VO':=~.· :',- ?.l..'7"T=?~.S OF TWO SP:C:::S Of SAL,·,'.'A.qSH RODE~"S. :: 3;;-. G=o~ge F.. Bull 5·). Calif. Acad.Sci. 67 '90·1 C3. ~ ;53

~J:'?TIONS M~D S;>:'::; ':'.'0'1 IN HARVESi ',liCE OF TH:I,~';;:;S.-::SOf S:'.:'-l ~;:;;'~;C3:;) SAY. Fis!er. Gr.. Ur:iv Calf. Pub.z::· i7:~·':3. j9-35

;.".:.:.. ~·S:S OF ::-;Si:CT 7;::,=- C DIVERSITY IN n...o S:'LT MARSHC~·\1\'U:>;ITJES. Car.'ef:;r'. 3'. ::ology 53:58·73, 1972.

':'.';A:..YSI$ OF SE!S,....~.C ,...~:.RDS, Earth Sc:.:;nces Associates,C"';'J ·;:)f ~1~n~o Park. 19/2.

A.'';~~JAL RECREATiC'" ::,,':,.-"D. ALLOCAT:D DEMAND AND?ARi,C:?ATION nAT: ::7·'.IAjES. Par~s ';;'1:: Recreation::-:;c~a:·cnSy'stem. 197:2 .'_-:I_:l;.S~edl.

.:'??E~.DiX B. TIDES I~. 7-: =';~LANDS SALT WATER FLOODCC~TROL PLANNING 57:":" - _:;cr E:c;:r:eenng Company. santaC:ara Valley Water Districr.• =--~

';PPENDIX D. SEDIMENT;'TjC\I .~ 5ClJ;;; SAN FRANCISCO BAY6EL.O','V DUMBARTON BR:DGE .... ':":E aAYLANDS SALT WATER='L.OC~ CONTROL PLANr-;I~'G S-_:v ,c;ccr Engineering Company,Sa-::a C'ara Valley Water DistrJC. - :-:;

;'~'JAT1COUGOCHAETA OF I"": ~':'''''';:RANCISCO BAY SYSTEM.7""=. 3r.r1.'Ihurst,' A.D. and M.LS:-:~cns, Calif. Fish & Game.:;":':15,,)-135.1968.

S':'{'-':'~DS SALT WATER FLOOD CONTROL PLANNING STUDY,T _=:::r E.- ;:/'leering Company. santa Clara Valley Water District, 1973.

=,·'-.":)~7HLY BIRD COUNTS AT SELECTED OBSERVATIONp~,:-.;7S Ai=lOUND SAN FRANCISCO BAY. FEB 1964-JAN 1966.S·:,·C'ar1, Frank H., P.K. Thelin & R.T. Forester, Calif. Fish and Game".:,.:.' <970

~~::''7':~ 'ABS~RPTION OF CARBON MONOXIDE IN"'CHAMBER;. -'.:CS?HERE, Martin. C., Master's Thesis, Calif. State Univ.S:>.: .!~se, 1973.

BIRDS OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION, THE,Sibiey. C.G., S.C. Va. Audubon Soc., San Jose, 1952.

BREEDING BIOLOGY OF GREAT BLUE HERONS AND COMMONEGRETS IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, Pratt, Helen M., The Condor72:407·416,1970.

CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN BREEDING IN ALAMEDA AND SANMAT:;O COUNTIES, THE, Anderson, W.. Calif. Fish & Game56:'36'7,1970.

C;'.~'='ORNIASHOREBIRD SURVEY 1969-1970, Jurek, R.M., Dept.of fiS1 and Game Report, 1971.

CA~,;=ORNIASHOREBIRD SURVEY 1970-1971, Jurek, R.M., Dept.of F;sn and Game Report, 19'72 (unpublished report).

C;:'~:FORNIA STREAMFLOW CHARACTERISTICS (FROM RE·:·:"IDS THROUGH 1968) VOLUME I: COLORADO RIVER BASIN,S:JT:-iERN GREAT BASIN, AND PACiFIC SLOPE BASINS EXCLUD·' ..:: CENTRAL VALLEY. USGS, Wa:er Resources Division, 1971.

:-.;'n OF RAINFALL. GROU.\CWATER LEVELS, POPULATION':",J SUBSIDENCE, Santa Clara Valiey Water Dislrict, 1974.

~;7Y OF NEWARK, CALlFO?~;!:' GENERAL PLAN, SEISMICS':';:E:TY AND SAFETY ELEME~n, :;:.~:'" Sciences Associates, 1973.

Cc.:'S'=l::-iENSIVE STUDY OF S;.~. F::':';NCISCO BAY. A. 1962·63.S·~'~:; ?X. R E. SeHe:~. a-:: :;, :earson. Berk.e!ey: S.E.R.L.:;:':~ 53·3 Ur:v. of Ca:;r. ,;-=..:.:::'.·=:;E~:~iSIVE STUD'1 CF S':'.~; FRA:--;CISCO BAY, A. 1963·64,::'-; =..'; R E. Se!:eck. :.~~ :.'; ?ears.::n. Berkeley S.ER.L. Report~:.~. U:'t'l o~ Ca!it .• 1935

CC:>;SE:"VATION ~:-.: O=EN SPACE Ei..:;M:;~T OF·THES:", ~.·:'7:0 COUN,': 3:',:=.:.~ ~L';'''l. Sen ~Ia:eo Cc;.;~:,· PlanningS;:a~-~~~. ~ 973.

C/707';XoJ~OMIC 57'..':':5 OF THE HARVEST MIC:; OF THEs.:.:, F:;';:iCISCO 3";:-- ;:':3:0N. Shellhammer. ~.S, J Mammalogy,':5,.:) 5.t;·S6,

:E.:_:="':',,:, :;c D.=1.';!~IAGE PATTERNS OF TIDAL MARSHES.7'-= =~;.~:,--; P. Stanford Un;v. Publ. Geol. Sci. Vol. X, No.2, 1965.

C!Si"':;,,,'""C~; 0;: THe: BIRDS OF CALIFORNIA, Grinnell, J.G andA.~. ~.jer =~·;;;c Coast Airfauna, No. 27, 1944.

D?A~ ae',.::..:: ?~AN FOR REDWOOD SHORES. RedwoodShores ?'arr'n;; C'e;oartment, 1974.

DRAFT E.I i=l. ml THE ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICTAQUIFER Re:CLAMATION PROGRAM. Jones an:! StokesAssociales; 1973.

DRAWBRIDGe. CALIFORNIA: THE DEMISE OF A FORGOTTENRAILWAY TO';,/N ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY, ThOmasC.Becker,1971.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF TRANSMISSION LINESb~ iHE WILD·LIFE OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY, THE. PHILIPH. Arend, , 970ECOLOGICAL RACES OF SONG SPARROWS IN TH: SANFRANCISCO BAY REGION, PART I: HABITAT AND' A6U:"-iDANCE.Marshall, J.T., Condor 50:233-256, 1948. '

ECOLOGICAL RACES OF SONG SPARROWS IN n ..,: S':'NFRANCISCO BAY REGION, PART II: GEOGRAPHIC VA?;':"710~.

Marshall. J.T., Condor 50:233-256. 1948.

ECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF THE SACRAMENTO·SAN .;c ':'.C\.:iNESTUARY: PART I, Kelly. D.W., Calif. Dept. Fish and G<lr':e. F;shBull. 133, 1966.

EFFECT OF WASTES ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF 5:)7""0',\INVERTEBRATES IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUAA". 7:-,:.Filice,F.P., WasmannJour.BioJ., 17:1-17,1 fig., 1959.

EMERYVilLE CRESCENT AND THE ALBANY-RICHMO'ID \it.:FLATS, SAN FRANCISCO BAYSHORE ECOLOGICAL STU;)YAREAS, Stebbins, R.C. and H.L. Mason, Rapt. submitted to Un;v. :!Calif. Berkeley, 1966.

ENGINEERING PROPERTIES AND PROBLEMS OF THE S;.~.

FRANCISCO BAY MUD SPECIAL REPORT NO. 82, Mitchell. JJ<.Calif. Div. Mines and Geol., 1963.

EVALUATION OF GROUND WATER RESOURCES· SOUTH BAY.APPENDIX A, Department of Water Resources, Geology, Bulletir:118-1,1967.

FILL, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development C~I7:'

mission. 1967.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOSTER CITY M;"Ri~~A.

Foster City Planning Department.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DUM3AR7CNBRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ON ROUTE 84 IN ALA"":JAAND SAN MATEO COUNTIES, California Department of Trarsxr:a·tion Toll Bridge Administration, 1973. .

FINAL STATUS REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA LEAST iE,,~ fOFl1970 BREEDING SEASON IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. CAUfC~:-;IA.Elliott. B.C., Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Re9i~n 3. SanFrancisco, '970.

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAYAEA, Ski:mer, J.E., Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Waler P~~lecl 8r.Decl. ~ 1. , 952.

FLO:;;' 0= THE SANTA CAUZ MOUNTAINS QF CALIFORNIA.j;~or.?s. ':0'-,:'1 H. Slanford University Press. 1961.

FeOD HA51iS OF SHORE BIRDS AND DIVING DUCKS IN THE SANFRANC;SCO 3~Y REGION, Annon,. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game(manuscr'Otl. 1955.

FORESTER S ;:;:;N ON SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY, Mansfield,Alber.. MA l~~ss I':'lanuscript, San Jose State Universily. San Jose.Call/orn a. 1; i ~

FUTURE DE'JELO~MENT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA1960-2020. U S. ~eparlment of Commerce {Ollice of Area Develop·ment),1959.

77

GEOLOGiCAL H!SieRY:;= 5:". ;:R';:-JCISCO BAY. Louderback.G.D. G<)ol. Gu:c~b·~·"~ :: ~~-: Sa." Francisco Bay COL;ntcs. 0"/. ofM;nes.SF .• 1951.

GEOLOGIC A:-.;D ~\;G,:-'EE:::';G AS?ECTS OF SAN FR;'II;CISCOSAY FILL. S?ECi';L ;:E:":::-:- ~7, Goldman. Haro!d B. ec;:cr. CaUDiv. M"''''5 ,,:,c Geel ; o.~;

G:::OL'JGY OF SA~',j FR.:";C:~CC S';Y. San Francisco Bay Conserva·tion ElM C;'?·.~;c:),'nE:r,:CCMr."ssicn. Stale 01 California. 1967.

G:::CLCGY OF THE SE2i,.,:,.7;.~y DE?OSITS IN SA~ "RANCiSCOgAY. :::';:':':=O,,:-;IA. SF:C.:'L. RE?ORT 83. Treas~er. RC. C!llif.c!',_ ~tI~,r:es ·and Gee... , 353

GES:ECH';:CAL STUDY OF THE NORTH SMl JOSE AND ,l..LV1SOA?SA. Cx·;Jer·Ciarl\ & Assv::~tes. 1971.

S;:.EEV..,.:...·1 S. County of sar::a C!"ra ?!anr,ing Deoar.~ent. 1961.

,...:. '~:aoor\ OF :-':ORTH A~.1E~:C';:'J 8:RDS. VOL. I. ?alr"'er. Ral~h P.•'.. .=:e In;,.~rSliY ?:ess. i 962.

'-;.:.~~D300K OF THE SA~; =.".:'.,'.CISCO R:::GION. Dreisbach,i'\"ter: H. Environment Studies. ?a:·::';:o. Cc-oil .. 1969.

j-o'S7C::'iCAL REVIEW OF THE ;:~SH ':'ND ·...~LDLIFE RESOURCESCF :HE S,l..N FRANCISCO BAY .:.=~.:.. S':''''''er, John E., 1962.

"-'Y:::;03:0LOGY OF THE ALV:S·::; .~':':"7 PONDS, Carpelan, L.H.,E:;:.. , 39. ~957.

I!\T~ODUC7!ON TO SEASHORE ;,,;=E :,~ THE SAN FRANCISCO3.~~· n:GIC'j AND THE COAS7 := 'iORTHERN CALIFORNIA,H;':;;~~:~. Jo~i '1'1.• Univ. of Calif. Pre~ : ?62.

IN':==E2~;TES FROM THE ES7t.:.:'~INE PORTION OF SAN~R.':";C·SCO BAY AND SOME F;"C70~S INFLUENCING THEIRD1S-::;:3\.JTiONS, Filice,F.P., Wasmann Jour. BioI. 16:159·211,3fi9S.

IN'. :S7:GATION OF WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY ANDPO~I_70. CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE AREAS IN S.F. BAY,Mc':~-:-.. J C. RA Wagner, E.A. Pearson. et. al., Berkeley S.E.RLUn. :":"llf.1962.

MU-'C:PAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER LOADING IN THESAN ~RANCISCO BAY. CALIFORNIA, 1970. Basic Data Contribution21. San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources PlanningStudy. USGS·HUD, 1971.

LAND SUBSIDENCE IN THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY, ALAMEDA,SAN MATEO. AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.Poland. JF.. U.S. Geological Survey and HUD, 1971.

LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. City of RedwoodCity, Ca·.femia. 1973.

LIFE "" STORIES OF NORTHERN AMERICAN SHOREBIRDS,Ben! :".-:~"r C., U.S. National Museum Bulletin. 1927.

MACPOFAUNA OF PLUMMER CREEK OF SAN FRANCISCO BAYCOU..:CTED BY A SPECIALLy DESIGNED TRAP, Wild, Paul W.,V~5:er's Thesis, Biology Department. San Jose State Uni··,';~5·"·. 7966.

'.·':'=S SHOWING AREAS OF POTENTIAL INUNDATION BY-~_"';'~<1IS IN THE SAN FRNJCISCO SAY REG:ON, Ritter. J.R..~.. :;iR Dupre. U.D. Geological Sur.,:, and HUD. 1972.

':E.:'" .·\:'\J:'o;UAL PRECIPITATION :'~;D PRECIPITATION DEPTH·:·";?';7;O~;·FREQUENCY DAiA F':~ 7HE SAN FRANCISCO BAY;:::3 C~. CALI~ORNIA. 8a"ic Da:;; C:"~r'=u:io" 52. San Francisco;:;j Re;;:on Environment ar;c =1eSOl,Jrces Planning Study.L:5GS·HiJD.1971.

~;:Si'i';3 SUCCESS O~ GRE":'.T 8:..:.;: HERONS AI':D COMMON:::;;::-3 ":'7 THE AUDU80N C,:.~;.,O~~ P;':-':CH. STUDY SECTION::.=:.=;:::ri 1 Pratt. !-lelen M. Av:.!::~ Sc':::'''':-j. Cali!. 1968

.;== S~;:';VEY OF OUTDOO? ;:=:REAT:ON ACTIVITIES. Bureau~'C~:::.:lr Recreation. 1967.

~ 970 S''';?'Jc.Y OF OUTDOOR R:CREATION ACTI'/ITiES. Bureau:~ ·,:>.. ::':or Recreat;cr., i 972

:,~;7=:~.-·==::_:'-"i:;'·{STUDIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY.TE:- ',C ~ ~ .:: :=:;:;- ',0 55·1. 8ain. RC. and J.C. McCarty. CentralPac'::: S~S-$;,::~::r =:';'4:'on Control Project, U.S. Depl. HEW Pub!.

C:?:'~ 5=':'C::";0 ':·:;"SER'IATION ELEMENT, Foster Citl p'e r •

r:~ng De~art7:e~:. ·~7~

OTTER TRO".:" CATCH RECORDS FOR STATIONS SOlJT"'! .:,~

SAN MATEO BRIDGE FOR THE YEARS 1969 TO PRESENT. ~.~?-~'ne

Ecological lnst::ule. on file at the Marine Ecological Institute 9 ~ ,Har~or Blvd.• Redwood City. Ca.

OUTDOOR RECREATION OUTLOOK MONOGRAPH .,3. S~"

FRANCISCO BAY AREA METROPOLITAN COMPLEX. Ca,':-;: 3

Department of Parks and Recreation, 1966.

OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES REVIEW COMMISSiON.REPORT" 19. National Recreation Survey, 1962.

OWNERSHIP, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Oe'.e1c:'"1c,n:Commission. 1968.

PHYSICAL BACKGROUND OF SAN MATEO COUNTY. San ~.:a:e·J

Planning Department, 1968.

PLAN FOR CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES, SANTA CL.A?ACOUNTY, County of Santa Clara Planning Commission, 1973

PLANNING FOR PARKS AND RECREATION IN SANTA C:..;.=;COUNTY, County of Santa Clara Planning Department, 1971.

PLAN OF THE REGIONAL PARKS FOR SANTA CLARA COU';'i":.County of Santa Clara Planning Department. 1972.

POLICY PLAN FOR THE BAYLANDS OF SANTA CLARA CO',)~~;Y

Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara County, 1972.

POLLUTION, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Devel~;:-'e~:

Commission, 1967.

POPULATION BIOLOGY OF THE SALT·MARSH HARVEST ~.~CUSE

REITHRODONTOMYS RAVIVENTRIS NEAR ALVISO. CALI=.Rice, V., M.A. Thesis. Depl. Bio. SCi.. San Jose Slate University. 197~.

POPULATION STRUCTURE IN SALT MARSH SONG SPARRC,',SPART I, Johnston, Richard F., Condor, 58:24·44, 1956.

POPULATION STRUCTURE IN SALT MARSH SONG SPARRO'tlS.Part II, DENSITY, AGE STRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE, Johns!:n.Richard F., Condor, 1956.

POPULATION STUDY OF HARVEST MICE IN THE PALO ALTOSALT MARSH, Wondollick, J.T., W. Zolan and GL Stevens. A Rep:l~

to the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. 1973. ~

PRECIPITATION DEPTH·DURATION·FREQUENCY TABLES. WiTHASSOCIATED BASIC DATA: APPENDIX C TO THE MEMO ~E·

PORT, REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL PRECIPITATiONEXTREMES tN CALIFORNIA, California Dept. of Waler Re·sources.1971.

PREDICTED SUSPENDED SEDIMENT INFLOWS TO THE S';~;

FRANCISCO BAY SYSTEM, Krone. RB.• prepared for Dept Ir>:enorControl Pacific River Basins, Davis. Ca., 1966.

PRELIMINARY FISH AND WILDLIFE PLAN FOR SAN FRA:-JC'SCCBAY·ESTUARY. DeUsle, Glenn. Report to S.F.B.C.D.C :rc'7l Ca:,t.Dept. of Fish and Game. 1966.

PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP OF SAN MATEO COU'-;TY.CAU~ORN!A. Brabb. Earl E., and Earl H. Pampeyan, U.S Geo.;;,caiSUN~y a~d HUD. 1972.

PREL~'''~;':'RY MAP OF HISTORICAL MARGINS OF M.';>:lSriL.';.':D.SA:\i ;:=l':'~'C:SCO BAY. CA., Nichols. D.R. and N.A. Wrigr.t, US.G.S.open t.ie ~s;:::rt. 1971.

PR=Li~A";:'RY MEPORT ON FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE COYOTECMEEK ;'~";J G'J.';DALUPE RIVER FLOOD PLAINS, Trice. A. SantaC'ara Va:iey i'.'a:e- District. 1974.

PM=L1M.~:"RY SiUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF "lATER CIRCULA­TiON IN 7HE S';N FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY. USGS Circularo37-A.B.1970

r

PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF SALT PONDSAND WILDLIFE· SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAY. Ar.derson. W.,Calif. Fish & Game 56:240·252, 1970.

QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF THE BENTHIC F~t:~,A OFF PT.RICHMO~D, CA., Jones, M.L., Univ. of Calif. Pub!. 2::.,' 67:219-320,30 figs , 1961.

RECREATION, San Francisco Bay Consel\'ation 1!r.:l u£>;e'c;:r.-:EntCommissicn, 1968.

RECREAT10:-.l AND FISHERY VALUES IN THE S,:.~ FQ.:".:;SCOBAY AND DELTA, Stanford Research Institute. rI.Ei"i::J Far~,

California. 19E6. .

RECREt.TfO'J AND PARKS STUDY, S.R.I.• 1965.

REFuSE DISFOSAL AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY, San Fra"lciscoSay Conservation and Development Commission, 1966.

ReG!O~AL PLAN. 1970:1980 SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION,'='.sscca:ion oj Bay Area Governments, Berkeley, Calif., 1970.

FE:";' ;,CNSHIPS BETWEEN SOIL SALINITY AND THE SALINITY OF~.=?L!ED WATER IN THE SUISUN MARSH OF CALIFORNIA. Rollins,G,e~1n L. Caltf. Fish and Game, 59(1):5-35.

RE:'A.7IVE ABUNDANCE OF SHARKS, BATS AND STINGRAYS INS.':'."J FRANCISCO BAY, Herald. E.S.• Calif. Fish and Game::7(3):315·329,1951.

REPORT ON SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY WATER QUALITY;t-:D CIRCULATION, Engineering Science. Inc. for Santa ClaraC~unty, 1970.RE;:lORT TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,Se,sm'c Ad·,isory Board, 1972.

REPORT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL;''-lD WATER DISTRICT ON THE BAYLANDS SALT WATER FLOODCOl\;TROL PLANNING STUDY, Tudor Engineering Company. 1973.

cE'.'!:W OF THE BI·MONTHLY BIRD COUNTS OF SAN FRANCISCO=AY FEBRUARY 1964·DECEMBER 1965, Gill, Robert, Jr.• Wildlife,.~a~zgement Branch Adm, Report No. 72·8. Calif. Dept. Fish &3",":"2 '972.

S':':-';' MARSH HARVEST MOUSE SURVEY. Schaub, D.B., Calif.,:''':: 0: Fish and Game, 1971.

S';:"" MARSHES AND SALT DESERTS OF THE WORLD, Chapman,~;: :"':o'1ord Hillinterscience. 1960.

£':'_7 $:'--':D AND SHELLS (MINERAL RESOURCES OF SANF~':""::iS::O BAY). Goldman, Harold B.• S.F. Bay Conservation andCo~.e·:;:):7e"!t Commission, 1967.

S':'L';' ,OLERANCE AND WATER REQUIREMENTS IN THES;'!.. ';' IV ':'PSH HARVEST MOUSE, Haines. H.• Physiol. ZooI.37·::€~·272, 1964.

S:,~; :'R';NCiSCO BAY TIDELANDS. Pestrong, Raymond, CaliforniaGeo;c<:y Celi!. Div. Mines and Geology, 1972.

S'='~ I.~;"7:0 COUNTY LOCAL BUS TRANSIT STUDY, 1974.

SA~TA CL':'.RA COUNTY BAYLANDS STUDY, Woodward-Glydeand ';SsOci2tes. 1968.

SEDIMENTATION ASPECTS OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY, Smith, B.J.,Report pre;;ared for SFBCDC, 1966.

SMOG ,;~u WE.4THER: THE EFFECT OF SAN FRANCISCO BAYON THE SAY AREA CLIMATE, Miller. A., Repor. fcr SF6CDC, 1967.

SNOV/Y EGRETS AND BLACK·CROWNED NIGHT HERONSNESTiNG IN A COMMON ROCKERY ON BAIR ISLAND, SANFRANCISCO BAY. Maltish, Richard. M.A. Ihesis man'..lscri;::t, SanJose State Univ., 1974.

SOIL·WATER SALT RELATIONSHIPS OF W:"-='=.=:::::" FOO;)PLANTS IN THE SUISUN MARSH OF CAlIFOS~,A 1.~all. Rolj E..Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Bull, if 1. i eesSOllD·WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE SAN FRA~,CIS::l ::.:.! ~:::;:8~,­

Goss. Joseph. San Francisco Bay Region E"lv.ro~""~-· 2-.0 F",s:::..:·:~

Planning Study, 1972.

SOME ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS C;:- So!.,\: ~=,t.NC:SCO 2';Y. ;"a:-.'£>:.H.T., SFBCDC. '956.SOME E:OLOG!C~L A'0RJ8U7ES := ;:'::>'07E l-m.LS =::.::;10..... .:._PARK AI\;D liS t..DJ':"C::-':T REG:C" ""a-_~·~. H';'.. I7',a~·us:· ::. '; - j

SOME ASPECTS OF THE FOPUL.!.-':)', :::CLOGY OF '.··2S~ ~:::;,.

SHOREBIRDS, Recher. H. Star!,:-: J~:'. 5iol. Dept. The,s 'S-:;SOUTH SA~~ FRANCISCO a,:. \ 5;;;::;:::)ING S:RD S..:=.:::, G.~

Robert, Jr., Ca!;! Fis'1 ano Ga~~ .•.•.::"~ rh~a;;~rnent c·.:~: - .~ ~- -..strative Report No. 72·6. Scc:-a-~~::. Ca.. 1971.

SPECIAL REPORT ON fISH A',: ,':;L.DLlFE RESOURCSS AFFEC·TED BY SALINITY CO~-;:::CL BARRIERS AND TlDEl;"',:RECLAMATION, SAN FR~.~.:,SCO BAY AREA, CAUFOF·,~.

PORTLAND. OREGON. U.S. F's~ a:,o W:ldlife Service. 191': 1

STORAGE CAPABILITIES OF THE PALO ALTO FLOOD c~S·.

Santa Clara County Water District, , 974.

STUDY OF SOME FACTORS AFFECTlf\G THE BOnOM F;'..;',:'OF A PORTION OF THE SA~ FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY. F: :~

F.P., Wasmann Jour. BioI. 12:257·292, 1954.

SUBSIDENCE IN THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY, CALIFORNiA· APROGRESS REPORT. Poland, J.F. and.J.H. Green. Geol. Dur. \·.~:er·

supply paper' 6 19·C., U.S. Dept. Int.. 1962.

SUCCESSION REVERSAL OF A SALT MARSH, Harvey, H.T.. ~r,u­script. 1974.

SUMMARY OF FISHES COLLECTED AT PALO ALTO YACHTHARBOR, SANTA CLARA CO., FOR THE YEARS 1965 TO ~973,

Hassur. R.L., unpublished report available from the author, BioI. Depl.San Jose State Univ., san Jose, Ca.• 1974.

SUPERNUMERARY CHROMOSOMES OF THE HARVEST MOUSE,REITHRODONTOMYS MEGALJTIS, Shellhammer, H.S., Chromosoma(Berlin), 1969.

TIDAL CURRENT CHARTS OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY, U.S., C,,::"'1·ment of Commerce. 1972.

TINICUM MARSH AS A WATER PURIFIER, Grant. A.R. and R. =;:-:k,Acad. of Nat. SCi. Philadelphia, Pa. Printed in Hearings of Co-~ :InMarch. Mar. and Fish. Nov. 15,1971, Serial No. 92·17, 1ge5

TRANSPORTATION, SFBCDC. 1968.

TSUNAMI POTENTIAL IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY: BAS.8 C':' TACONTRIBUTION #51. San Frcncisco Bay Region Enviro.,~,e:-,' e:-.dResources Planning Study, US:=S·HUD, 1973.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT OP~" SPACE PLAN FOR SA~TA CiJ.=.ACOUNTY. County 01 Santa C,a,-l ::>:anning Department. 19i3.

URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL 3=':)_:)GY IN THE SAN F?A:'CI&:OBAY REGION, E.E.G., SA~ ==.:...~C:SCO SECTION. Dan;;:'w. E.":"and A.C. Harding. editors. , ;~= .VERTICAL DISTRIBUTIO:, C·: S':':"7 ~"'ARSH PHANEROG~';"'S

IN RELATION TO Ti::E l: .:::"S. Hinde, H.P .• Ecclo;y24:209·225,1954.

ZOOBENTHOS OF S':'~" ::,:,S:"C .:. ...... : S\J'SUN BAYS. Pa,:",:er. R.E..Dept. of Fish 2:iC Game S~I;. "3~ .. ;.-:-:

79