The Report as a Flipbook
The flipbook integrates features such as text searching, bookmarking, and new enhancements, such as interactive charts and data stories.
The Executive Summary as a PDF
If you wish to take the report “to go,” then a PDF offers the best form for printing and emailing.
The Report in Motion
A Video Summary
INTERACTIVE ELEMENTS
We have crafted interactive graphs, charts, and data stories, all designed to bring some of the most salient information to life. You can find these interactive elements in the forthcoming eBook itself and via the following links:
Marsh is a home to many key species in both the Bay and Delta. A story map guides you through a comparison of changes to Bay and Delta marshland.
People
The tale of Bay Area stewardship of our drinking water since 1986 is remarkable for its conservation improvements and its ongoing challenges.
Summary of Estuary Health 2015
This table offers a brief, simplified summary of the 80 pages of information that appear in the report. The report, in turn, is based on painstaking work to assess the status and trends of the 33 indicators of estuary health listed below by teams engaging more than 100 scientists.
Conditions are excellent at most Estuary beaches most of the time. Conditions have been poor at 7% of beaches in summer, and 27% of beaches in wet weather at times during recent years.
Estuary water quality is much better than 40 years ago, but the rate of improvement has slowed. Mercury, invasive species, pesticides, and trash are still problems. Improvement has been achieved for PBDEs and copper. Many potentially harmful chemicals have yet to be assessed.
Limited consumption of most popular Estuary fish species is advised due to contamination from two legacy pollutants (mercury and PCBs). Routine monitoring in place since 1994 has shown no declines in these contaminants.
The amounts and variability of freshwater inflow to the Estuary have been substantially reduced, resulting in degradation of habitat conditions and ecological function in the Estuary.
In Suisun Bay, good quality, low salinity habitat occurs too infrequently, and for too short a time, to support flow-dependent organisms and the estuarine food web. In Delta channel habitats, net downstream flow is too low to support native fish species.
The extent of eelgrass beds in the Estuary has increased, but is highly variable year to-year. The current total acreage is significantly less than the estimated maximum potential extent.
Delta marshes have been lost and fragmented to a much greater degree than Bay marshes, despite covering a greater area historically. Restoration efforts have made a significant impact on Bay habitats, but are only just getting underway in the Delta.
The benthic community at the foundation of the food web still includes many native species, but there are now many non-native species present as well. In some places, most individual benthic organisms are non-native.
Please visit the Estuaries Portal to learn additional information about the benthic monitoring program.
The fish community differs across the Estuary with increasingly poor conditions toward the upper Estuary. Native fish abundance in the brackish and fresh upper Estuary has declined markedly during the past three decades and is in poor condition.
Wintering dabbling duck populations are strongly increasing across all parts of San Francisco Bay. Wintering diving duck populations are strongly decreasing in Central and North Bays but remain stable in the South Bay.
Populations of dabbling ducks that breed in the Estuary are mostly decreasing across Suisun Marsh and the Delta. Less common dabblers (non-Mallards) are increasing in the Delta.
The Estuary’s population of large shorebirds is declining, especially in the South Bay. In the Central and North Bay, populations of medium and small shorebirds are stable or increasing, while in the South Bay they are on the decline.
Heron and egret nest density is increasing over the long term. Nest success, in terms of fledged chicks, is relatively stable. Subregions reveal more complex patterns.
In the North Bay, endangered Ridgway’s rail populations have rebounded since a 2007-2009 decline. South Bay populations have stabilized at low levels after a similar decline, but not rebounded.
Most land around the Estuary available for estuarine habitats to migrate landward, and accommodate higher sea levels, has been developed. Very little of the undeveloped portion is protected.
Flood flow events are now too infrequent, too small and too short in the Estuary to support important ecological processes. Dams, levees and water diversions have cut high volume inflows and beneficial inundation of the Yolo Bypass floodplain.
The abundance of fish varies across the Upper Estuary. In the historically productive marsh and open water zones, small forage fish are declining, but in the Delta beach zone, they are increasing.
The abundance of fish varies across the Upper Estuary. In the historically productive marsh and open water zones, small forage fish are declining, but in the Delta beach zone, they are increasing.
The breeding success of Brandt’s cormorants in recent years indicates that they are finding enough food in the open waters of the Estuary to feed their young, following a severe decline in success from 2009-2012.
In the Bay Area, urban water conservation efforts have lowered water use while population has increased. Short-term water use reductions in response to the drought have exceeded State-mandated targets but they may be short-lived.
So, what are the details of this health report? The status of half of the Delta and Suisun indicators is fair (including water quality and the organisms low in the food web). The other half are in poor condition (including freshwater inflows, beneficial flooding, open water and tidal marsh habitats, and fish communities). Most of these parts of the Delta and Suisun ecosystem are deteriorating over time or show mixed trends across subregions.
In contrast, the status of most Bay indicators is fair, including water quality, tidal marsh habitat, wildlife populations from harbor seals to birds, and human stewardship of the environment from trash clean up to water conservation. Bay fish and the birds that feed on them in the marine waters are even in good condition. Most of these parts of the San Francisco Bay ecosystem are either improving or have mixed trends across subregions.
Why are the Delta and Suisun Bay in critical condition? Why is San Francisco Bay in better condition?
The Bay is healthier by comparison to the Delta due to less ecosystem alteration by modern humans. There are three main causes of these impacts to ecosystem health: habitat loss and fragmentation, interruption of the ecological and physical processes associated with vibrant habitats, and the invasion of nonnative species.
Over the last 200 years, California’s Delta has become one of the most hydrologically modified deltas in the world. We’ve converted wetlands to farmland and altered a landscape once dominated by tidal marsh — a vital form of habitat — into a place dominated by levees, agricultural land, and channelized waterways. Flooding needed to move nutrients and sediments has also been limited. With growing water supply demands, the Delta has been further shaped to suit population and economic needs, such that ⅓ of all water entering the Delta never enters the Bay.
Restoration efforts are further along in the Bay where marshlands are once again defining significant portions of the Bay margins. But the Delta’s compromised ecology and hydrology may have made the region more vulnerable to invasions by non-native species, leaving parts of the system — especially the South Delta — a hostile environment for threatened native species.
Can we make the Estuary healthy?
Improvements in the status of several parts of the ecosystem show that we are very successful at restoring ecosystem health when we choose to make that investment. Water quality has improved over the last few decades due to improved management and regulation. Some legacy contaminants remain a problem, so managers are focusing on reducing inputs from urban runoff. Focused collaboration along with significant funding have resulted in large gains in tidal marsh restoration over last two decades, and improvements in marsh-dependent wildlife populations are now detectable as restored marshes mature. Investments in water conservation and recycling in urban areas are reducing demand for potable water, even while our population is increasing.
What will it take to achieve a health Bay and Delta?
The mixed results of this assessment in different areas of the Estuary indicate that we are not be doing enough to restore and maintain ecosystem health. A bolder approach will be needed to recover from past and ongoing impacts, especially since future impacts from climate change further jeopardize the ecosystem.
The Upper Estuary will require significant investment in restoring critical physical processes (notably freshwater inflows and floods) and habitats, as well as managing non-native species and preventing new arrivals. This will also require much greater efficiencies in human use of the system’s fresh water, as well as changes in upstream water management and policy, to make the conserved water available to nourish the Estuary.
The Bay’s wetlands are also at risk unless we take a new watershed-based, regional approach to managing sediment and fresh water as essential resources, and also make room for tidal wetlands to migrate landward. Wildlife conservation efforts should aim to ensure successful reproduction and habitat connectivity over time as climate change alters landscapes.
In short, the physical and biological processes that operate at the foundations of estuarine health are deeply damaged and must be fixed if we are to retain our native plants and animals, wetlands that protect shorelines, recreational opportunities, and clean water.
Hothouse Earth
By Ariel Rubissow Okamoto
Photo by Megan Nguyen
Nothing could be stranger than sitting in the dark with thousands of suits and heels, watching a parade of promises to decarbonize from companies and countries large and small, reeling from the beauties of big screen rainforests and indigenous necklaces, and getting all choked up.
It was day two of the September 2018 Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco when I felt it.
At first I wondered if I was simply starstruck. Most of us labor away trying to fix one small corner of the planet or another without seeing the likes of Harrison Ford, Al Gore, Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Jerry Brown – or the ministers or mayors of dozens of cities and countries – in person, on stage and at times angry enough to spit. And between these luminaries a steady stream of CEOs, corporate sustainability officers, and pension fund managers promising percentages of renewables and profits in their portfolios dedicated to the climate cause by 2020-2050.
I tried to give every speaker my full attention: the young man of Vuntut Gwichin heritage from the edge of the Yukon’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge who pleaded with us not to enter his sacred lands with our drills and dependencies; all the women – swathed in bright patterns and head-scarfs – who kept punching their hearts. “My uncle in Uganda would take 129 years to emit the same amount of carbon as an American would in one year,” said Oxfam’s Winnie Byanyima.
“Our janitors are shutting off the lights you leave on,” said Aida Cardenas, speaking about the frontline workers she trains, mostly immigrants, who are excited to be part of climate change solutions in their new country.
The men on the stage, strutting about in feathers and pinstripes, spoke of hopes and dreams, money and power. “The notion that you can either do good or do well is a myth we have to collectively bust,” said New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy whose state is investing heavily in offshore wind farms.
“Climate change isn’t just about risks, it’s about opportunities,” said Blackrock sustainable investment manager Brian Deese.
But it wasn’t all these fine speeches that started the butterflies. Halfway through the second day of testimonials, it was a slight white-haired woman wrapped in an azure pashmina that pricked my tears. One minute she was on the silver screen with Alec Baldwin and the next she taking a seat on stage. She talked about trees. How trees can solve 30% of our carbon reduction problem. How we have to stop whacking them back in the Amazon and start planting them everywhere else. I couldn’t help thinking of Dr. Suess and his truffala trees. Jane Goodall, over 80, is as fierce as my Lorax. Or my daughter’s Avatar.
Analyzing my take home feeling from the event I realized it wasn’t the usual fear – killer storms, tidal waves, no food for my kids to eat on a half-baked planet – nor a newfound sense of hope – I’ve always thought nature will get along just fine without us. What I felt was relief. People were actually doing something. Doing a lot. And there was so much more we could do.
As we all pumped fists in the dark, as the presentations went on and on and on because so many people and businesses and countries wanted to STEP UP, I realized how swayed I had let myself be by the doomsday news mill.
“We must be like the river, “ said a boy from Bangladesh named Risalat Khan, who had noticed our Sierra watersheds from the plane. “We must cut through the mountain of obstacles. Let’s be the river!”
Or as Harrison Ford less poetically put it: “Let’s turn off our phones and roll up our sleeves and kick this monster’s ass.”
4th California Climate Change Assessment Blues
by Isaac Pearlman
Since California’s last state-led climate change assessment in 2012, the Golden State has experienced a litany of natural disasters. This includes four years of severe drought from 2012 to 2016, an almost non-existent Sierra Nevada snowpack in 2014-2015 costing $2.1 billion in economic losses, widespread Bay Area flooding from winter 2017 storms, and extremely large and damaging wildfires culminating with this year’s Mendocino Complex fire achieving the dubious distinction of the largest in state history. California’s most recent climate assessment, released August 27th, predicts that for the state and the Bay Area, we can expect even more in the future.
The California state government first began assessing climate impacts formally in 2006, due to an executive order by Governor Schwarzenegger. California’s latest iteration and its fourth overall, includes a dizzying array of 44 technical reports; three topical studies on climate justice, tribal and indigenous communities, and the coast and ocean; as well as nine region-specific analyses.
The results are alarming for our state’s future: an estimated four to five feet of sea level rise and loss of one to two-thirds of Southern California beaches by 2100, a 50 percent increase in wildfires over 25,000 acres, stronger and longer heat waves, and infrastructure like airports, wastewater treatment plants, rail and roadways increasingly likely to suffer flooding.
For the first time, California’s latest assessment dives into climate consequences on a regional level. Academics representing nine California regions spearheaded research and summarized the best available science on the variable heat, rain, flooding and extreme event consequences for their areas. For example, the highest local rate of sea level rise in the state is at the rapidly subsiding Humboldt Bay. In San Diego county, the most biodiverse in all of California, preserving its many fragile and endangered species is an urgent priority. Francesca Hopkins from UC Riverside found that the highest rate of childhood asthma in the state isn’t an urban smog-filled city but in the Imperial Valley, where toxic dust from Salton Sea disaster chokes communities – and will only become worse as higher temperatures and less water due to climate change dry and brittle the area.
According to the Bay Area Regional Report, since 1950 the Bay Area has already increased in temperature by 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit and local sea level is eight inches higher than it was one hundred years ago. Future climate will render the Bay Area less suitable for our evergreen redwood and fir forests, and more favorable for tolerant chaparral shrub land. The region’s seven million people and $750 billion economy (almost one-third of California’s total) is predicted to be increasingly beset by more “boom and bust” irregular wet and very dry years, punctuated by increasingly intense and damaging storms.
Unsurprisingly, according to the report the Bay Area’s intensifying housing and equity problems have a multiplier affect with climate change. As Bay Area housing spreads further north, south, and inland the result is higher transportation and energy needs for those with the fewest resources available to afford them; and acute disparity in climate vulnerability across Bay Area communities and populations.
“All Californians will likely endure more illness and be at greater risk of early death because of climate change,” bluntly states the statewide summary brochure for California’s climate assessment. “[However] vulnerable populations that already experience the greatest adverse health impacts will be disproportionately affected.”
“We’re much better at being reactive to a disaster than planning ahead,” said UC Berkeley professor and contributing author David Ackerly at a California Adaptation Forum panel in Sacramento on August 27th. “And it is vulnerable communities that suffer from those disasters. How much human suffering has to happen before it triggers the next round of activity?”
The assessment’s data is publicly available online at “Cal-adapt,” where Californians can explore projected impacts for their neighborhoods, towns, and regions.
Water
Habitat
Wildlife
Processes
People
The results are alarming for our state’s future: an estimated four to five feet of sea level rise and loss of one to two-thirds of Southern California beaches by 2100, a 50 percent increase in wildfires over 25,000 acres, stronger and longer heat waves, and infrastructure like airports, wastewater treatment plants, rail and roadways increasingly likely to suffer flooding.