PUBLIC MEETING
            FOR ESTUARIES
          FEBRUARY 18-19, 1969
            VOLUME 1 OF 2

                PUBLIC MEETING


                 VOLUME  1  OF  2

             February  18-19,  1969

             State Office  Building
           San Francisco,  California
                      -: •  "' Infjftof
                      iiu.\. it j. 08817

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS


Invitation	     £i£

Guidelines for Public Meeting 	       v

Foreword	      vj_

                   Morning Session, February 18, 1969

Welcome and Introductions

   Mr. James C. McCarty, Jr	       1
   Mr. William A. Alexander	       1

Legislative Background and Purpose of Public Meeting

   Mr. Irving M. Terzich	       2


   Congressman William S. Mailliard   	       5
   Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz	       7
   Mr. Trevenen A. Wright	      13
   Mr. Sidney Brooks	      18
   Dr. John P. Harville	      19

                  Afternoon Session, February 18, 1969

   Mr. Martin Roche	      28
   Dr. H. Thomas Harvey	      32
   Dr. Joel F. Gustafson	      43
   Dr. Gene E. Willeke	      52
                   Evening Session^ February 18, 1969

   Dr. Howard L. Cogswell	      58
   Mr. Edwin B. Royce	      60

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
               Evening Session,  February 18,  1969  (Cont'd)
Statements (Cont'd)

   Mr.  Peter H.  Zars	      68
   Dr.  Fred H. Tarp	      72
   Mr.  Arthur L. Ogilvie	      77
                   Morning Session,  February 19,  1969
   Congressman Jerome R. Waldie 	      82
   Mr. John E. DeVito	      97
   Dr. Carl W. Chen	     104
   Mr. Arthur L. Ogilvie	'  .  .  .     107
   Mr. Hanford Eldh	     119
Statements and Reports for the Record

   Congressman Jerome R. Waldie 	    123

   Congressman George P. Miller 	    133

   San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission  	    137

   Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments	    143

   Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 	    146

   South Bay Wildlife Refuge Committee -- Dr. H. Thomas Harvey  ....    162

   Resources and Ecology Projects -- Dr. Joel F. Gustafson	    164

   Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter 	    221

   California State Department of Water Resources 	    245


   Participants 	    313
   Attendees	    314

Statements and Reports for the Record Continued in VOLUME 2.

                            PUBLIC MEETINGS ON
    As  a  cooperative endeavor, the California State Water Resources Control
    Board and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will co-
    sponsor two state-wide  estuarine public meetings in February 1969.  The
    meetings are scheduled  for 9 a.m. at the following locations, on the dates

            San Francisco, California    February 18-19, 1969

            Room 1194
            State of California Building
            350 McAllister Street
            San Francisco, California  94102

            Los Angeles, California	February 25-26, 1969

            Room 1138
            Junipero Serra Building
            State of California
            107 South Broadway
            Los Angeles, California  90012

    Under mandate of Congress, the U. S„ Department of the Interior, Federal
    Water Pollution Control Administration is responsible for the preparation
    of  a  comprehensive report on the status of pollution in the Nation's estu-
    aries.  The report will include:

         1.  an analysis of the importance of estuaries to the economic
            and social well-being of the people of the United States
            and of the effects of pollution upon the use and enjoyment
            of such estuaries;

         2.  a discussion of the major economic, social and ecological
            trends occurring in the estuarine zones of the Nation; and

         3.  recommendations for a comprehensive national program for
            the preservation, study, use and development of estuaries

                                  - 2 -
         of the Nation, and the respective responsibilities  which
         should be assumed by Federal, State and local governments
         and by public and private interests.

These public meetings will provide an opportunity for individuals,  groups,
associations and organizations having an interest in the estuaries  in the
State of California and the problems related thereto, to make their views

Presentations may be either written or oral.  If written, three copies,
preferably typed, should be available for the record.  An oral summary
of the statement may be given at the meeting if so desired.   Those  antici-
pating presentation of statements, or if additional information on  the
meetings is needed, should call or write:

         Mr. Irving M. Terzich
         Pacific Southwest Region
         Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
         760 Market Street
         San Francisco, California  94102     Phone: (415) 556-7637

by February 12, 1969, to facilitate adequate time scheduling for.presen-
tations.  Written statements for the record will be accepted until
March 14, 1969.

To accommodate the greatest number of participants, meeting sessions will
be planned for the morning, afternoon and evening of the first day.  If
the volume of presentations warrants, the morning of the second day will
be scheduled to hear additional statements.
1.  Guidelines for Public Meetings
2.  National Estuarine Pollution Study

                   FOR   THE   NATION'S   ESTUARIES
                          STATE OF CALIFORNIA
            San Francisco, California      February 18-19,  1969
            Los Angeles, California        February 25-26,  1969
The estuary system of California includes  its tidal waters,  the  shore and
adjacent land,  and the biology and ecology of the coastal areas.  It is this
total resource  on which we wish to receive information at the February 1969
public meetings.

We will be particularly interested in your answers and position  on  the fol-
lowing types of questions:

     What are the values  (aesthetic,  personal, recreational,
         dollar, etc.) of an estuary?
     How have they been damaged by pollution, and how much?
     What do you think the future of  our coastal zones should be?
     What are the best uses of our estuaries?
     What system of management--local,  State and Federal—will
         best provide for development and  protection of our
         estuarine resources?

You may have other pertinent points to  raise.  We are interested in hearing
what you have to say on the subject of  pollution, its effects, and  its con-
trol in our estuaries.

To provide for  an orderly meeting with  time available for all, the  following
guides are established:

     1.  Statements should be concise and  based upon the subjects of
         estuarine pollution and its  effects on beneficial uses.  It
         is suggested that lengthy statements be filed in writing for
         inclusion in the meeting record,  and a brief summary of the
         statement presented orally.

     2.  A screen, blackboard, easel  and projection equipment (2" x 2"
         35 mm  slides) will be provided for those wishing to  accompany
         their  presentation with visual aids.  Special visual aids will
         be the responsibility of those making presentations.


The public meeting transcript which follows is an important part

of the National Estuarine Pollution Study.  In the Clean Waters

Restoration Act of 1966, Congress directed the Secretary of the

Interior to conduct a study of the Nation's estuaries and to

submit a report thereon by November, 1969.  The report is to

include recommendations for a comprehensive national program for

the preservation, use and development of the estuaries; and the

respective responsibilities which should be assumed by Federal,

State and local governments, and by public and private interests.

Jointly sponsored by the State of California and the Pacific Southwest

Region, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration the meeting

provided an opportunity for all interested individuals and organiza-

tions to express their views on water quality management for the

estuaries of the State of California.


        ...The Hearing was called to order at 9:15 a.m.  ...

        MR. McCARTY:  Good morning and welcome to your meeting.

        My name is James Mccarty, and I am Coordinator for the
National Estuarine Study in the Pacific Southwest Region of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.

        Mr. Paul DeFalco, Director for the Pacific Southwest Region,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, has asked that I
express his deepest regrets at being unable to preside at this
meeting.  As many of you know, our Agency has been involved to a
considerable extent in the oil pollution problem at Santa Barbara,
and it has been necessary for him to attend to important matters
related to this situation.

        The purpose of this public meeting is to receive your views
on the impact of pollution on California's estuarine system.  Cer-
tainly, in this State, perhaps more than any other, these waters
are among your most priceless resources.

        This public meeting is the first of two being planned for
the State of California.  The other meeting will be held next week
in Los Angeles.  To date, meetings such as. this have been held in 23
coastal states of the Nation.

        In a few moments, you will be asked to express your views on
this important subject and you will be presenting them to Mr.
Alexander and myself.

        We are not here to judge or cross-examine.  We wish to hear
and to understand what you have to say.  Occasionally, Mr. Alexander
or myself may ask questions of the speaker to clarify a  point or to
guide discussions to bring out particular views on an important
issue.  Debate of issues is not a proper function of this meeting.

        I would like to have you meet Mr. William Alexander, my
Co-chairman for this meeting, now.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Thank you, Mr. Mccarty.  I am William
Alexander, Vice-chairman of the State Water Resources Control
Board, and on behalf of Kerry Mulligan, the Chairman of  the Board,
and the rest of the Board Members, I am happy to welcome you all
here today.  We are certainly interested in your testimony,  infor-
mation that you have for the group here and are glad to  be a part
of this public meeting.

        Thank you.

        MR. MCCARTY:  Thanks, Bill.

        Many of you have read our announcements regarding this
meeting and are familiar with our study.  For those of you who are
not, I would like to call on Mr. Irving Terzich,  of our Regional
Staff, to present a brief statement on legislation related to the
study and activities to date.  Mr. Terzich.

        MR. TERZICH;  Thank you.  I am Irving M.  Terzich, Public
Information and Education Director, Pacific Southwest Region,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.

        The National Estuarine Pollution Study was authorized by
the Congress through passage of the clean Water Restoration Act of
1966.  This Act directs the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior in cooperation with many public and private interests to
conduct a comprehensive study of the Nation's estuaries.  Specifi-
cally, this study will:

        Determine the present state of pollution

        Delineate pollution problems requiring further study

        Evaluate the effects of pollution on beneficial uses

        Document the values of estuarine zones

        Provide a basis of action for the beneficial management of
the Nation's estuaries.

        There are many definitions of an estuary.  The Federal Act
has defined the term "Estuarine Zone" for purposes of this study

        "An environmental system consisting of an estuary and
         those transitional areas which are consistently influ-
         enced or affected by water from an estuary such as,
         but not limited to, salt marshes, coastal and inter-
         tidal areas, bays, harbors, lagoons, inshore waters
         and channels...."

        The Act further defines the term "estuary" to mean,

        "All or part of the mouth of a navigable or inter-
         state river or stream or other body of water having
         unimpaired natural connection with the open sea and
         within which the sea water is measurably diluted with
         fresh water derived from land drainage."

        Thus, for purposes of this study, we are really concerned
with all coastal and estuarine waters, the land areas which might
affect these waters and the total management of these land and
water areas.

        The study is to be completed and a report made to the
Congress by November of this year.

        The responsibility for coordinating the study and preparing
a response to Congress was assigned to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration.  The Act specifies that the report to the
Congress must include, and I quote:  "Recommendations for a com-
prehensive National program for the preservation, study, use and
development of the Estuaries of the Nation; and the respective
responsibilities which should be assumed by Federal, State, and
Local Governments and by public and private interests."

        We are using a three-pronged approach to accomplish this

        First, the estuaries themselves are being examined.  A
description of the national system is being composited in terms of
what it is, how it functions and how it has been damaged by

        Next, the social and economic pressures on the estuarine
system are being studied.  Resource use and the economic and
social value of each use are being documented to establish the
relative importance of these factors to the estuarine system.

        The first two phases will provide an estuarine register—
a comprehensive inventory—a necessary base for any management

        This brings us to the third phase—the development of
recommendations for submission to the Congress.  This is a most
important phase and must include the needs and desires of the
public.  This is the primary reason we are gathered here today.
Your remarks will be recorded in an official transcript from
which recommendations will be prepared on all of the important
environmental, social, economic and political factors.  In
essence, a management plan will be developed, describing the
Nation's estuaries and proposing a management system, including
the necessary authorities and responsibilities for their wise
use and development.

        This ambitious task, of course, cannot be done in any
single Federal office.  Its success requires that we seek help,
advice and the counsel of others.  Each Federal agency involved
in estuarine work is providing us with detailed descriptions and
comments.  Likewise, each state is providing similar descriptions
and comments.

        For those aspects of the study requiring special compe-
tence and staff not available within the Administration, such as

ecology, social and economic values and sedimentation, we are con-
tracting with other agencies and organizations to provide the
needed inputs.  Also, very importantly, we are working closely with
the coastal states.  Here, we are working with the State of
California.  Through the cooperation and assistance of Mr. Norman
Livermore, Administrator, The California Resources Agency? Mr.
Kerry Mulligan, chairman, California Water Resources control Board;
and Mr. Paul Bonderson, Chief, Division of Water Quality, of that
Board, and their respective staffs, we have already contacted
other State agencies and have obtained a consolidated description
of California's programs related to estuary management and develop-
ment.  This description is now undergoing a final review by various
State agencies.  An additional part of their support is co-
sponsorship of today's meeting.

        This meeting provides an opportunity that should not go
unheeded.  Congress has asked for recommendations before it
legislates, and it is important that your views be made known.

        Thank you.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Irv.

        I would like to make a few last remarks regarding our
procedures before we begin.  With the assistance of the California
Water Resources Control Board, over 1400 invitations have been
sent to all organizations, agencies, industrial and agricultural
concerns and individuals that we thought might have an interest
in this study.  However, this is a public meeting and I want to
emphasize this fact, and we welcome statements from anyone wishing
to speak.  If you have not already done so, I would ask that you
please indicate on the registration cards provided at the rear of
the room your desire to make a statement.

        We have made arrangements to convene the meeting this
evening to receive statements beginning at 7:00 p.m. for those of
you who cannot stay through the day.  If the volume of presenta-
tions warrant, we will reconvene again tomorrow morning beginning
at 9:00 a.m.  If you have questions about making your statement,
please ask Mr. Terzich to help you.  He will generally be located
in the rear of the room at the registration desk.

        Those of you wishing to submit written statements either
now or in the next few weeks are welcome to do so.  Mr. Terzich
will take them or tell you where they can be mailed.  Any written
statement submitted by March 14 of this year will be included in
the record.

        We have a 35 millimeter slide projector available for those
of you who need it, and you simply have to indicate to Mr. Terzich

if you would like to use it.

        These proceedings are being recorded and a verbatim tran-
script is being made which will provide a complete record of what
is said here today.  We will make copies of it available to the
State Water Resources Control Board — California's official water
pollution control agency*  We have found that generally it is best
that the people who wish transcripts should request them through
their state agencies rather than directly from the Federal Govern-
ment.  This maintains a normal relationship of the people with the
State.  However, for those of you who would like a copy, please
enter your name and address on the cards provided at the rear of
the room.

        If you are planning to speak and have a written copy or
outline, it would greatly aid us if you would provide Mr. Terzich
with a copy before making your statement.  Also, if you have
exhibits or any maps that you would like included in the tran-
script, please remember that everything in the transcript will
be in black and white.  It would help if anyone using a visual
aid will try to remember that your statement will appear in
transcript form and avoid saying things like "over there" or
"the spot marked in red."  Otherwise, your statement in the
transcript may end up being relatively unintelligible.  People
who are making a statement should come to the lectern here in

        Once again, let me emphasize that we are not prepared to
entertain questions from the floor.  Our purpose is to collect
your views and ideas and not to provide a forum for debate.

        I would like to now call on our first speaker of the
morning.  I understand that Congressman Mailliard is in the
audience.  Congressman William S. Mailliard from the Sixth
Congressional District, State of California, we welcome you here

Alexander.  My only purpose in being here today is to express my
very deep and long-term personal interest in this kind of a
project.  As a member of the Committee on Merchant Marine
Fisheries, we have been wrestling with these problems now for a
number of years, and finally last August, a bill that came from
our Committee was signed into law which tied in very specifically
to the responsibility that had already been placed on the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration to expand their study to
include a little bit broader spectrum than just the question of

        The Committee hearings which were quite extensive and

were published represent quite a volume and have a lot of infor-
mation, but there again, mostly from Government agencies, not too
much from the public, and I just think that this is the right way
to go at this kind of a problem so that everybody gets a chance
to have their say, and it is very comforting to me to see the
rather new, I'm afraid, public interest in what I consider to be
one of our major problems.

        It seems to me that this question of managing our environ-
ment and resources is just as much a matter of life and death as
the atomic bomb or almost anything else we can think of, and
neglect is certainly apparent to anyone who has lived here in the
Bay Area for half a century like I have where I can remember
resources in this Bay that simply do not exist anymore.  I am
afraid that we are moving further down that path.

        As a matter of fact, in the testimony before our Committee,
we are cited as the horrible example.  There are two recent reports
within the last month that have been furnished to the Congress.
One is from the National Marine Council on Resources and
Development, and the other is from the Commission which was created
by legislation on Marine Science Engineering and Resources.  Both
of these mention San Francisco's Bay as the horrible example of
the tremendous loss over a period of twenty years or so in the
tidal wetlands that were the basis of important resources both
economically and from the point of view of recreation and every-
thing else living in the area.

        So, I just wanted to say to those that are here that there
is a tremendous interest in the Congress in this problem and in
related problems.  The whole emphasis that we are trying to put
on oceanographic problems all ties in together with learning how
to manage our resources, and I was very interested to see that
the Commission has come up with some very specific recommendations
on joint State-Federal management and application of resources to
try to reverse the trend that has unhappily been on us so long.
As I say, I came only to express my interest in the hope that
these public hearings will really produce the information that we
need to proceed intelligently in the Congress to try to lick
these problems.

        Thank you.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you. Congressman Mailliard.  We cer-
tainly appreciate your taking time from your very busy schedule
to be with us this morning.

        Are there any other Federal legislators. Congressmen, in
the audience or their aides or representatives who would like to

        If not, are there any representatives from the state
Legislature or their aides who would like to say some words?

        If not, we will move along to our next scheduled speaker,
Mr. Joseph Bodovitz, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission.

        MR. JOSEPH E. BODOVITZ:  Thank you very much, Mr. Mccarty
and Mr. Alexander.  I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to
appear early because of a commitment that I have later on today.

        As I believe you know, the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission was created by the State Legislature
in 1965 as a result of public concern in the Bay Area over un-
restricted filling of the San Francisco Bay.  The commission was
given two jobs to do:  First, to control all filling and dredging
of the Bay during a temporary period, and secondly, to prepare a
plan for the future of the Bay.

        The Commission has been on time with its assignments and
has committed to the Governor and the Legislature in the last
month its plan for the Bay, together with a summary.  I men-
tioned this because both of these documents are available to the
public for sale at cost from the State Printing Office in
Sacramento.  If anyone is interested, I can provide details as to

        I would like to submit for the record a very brief summary
sheet outlining the Commission's findings and conclusions in its
plan that I hope would be of use as part of your record.

        The Chairman of our Commission, Melvin Lane, Publisher of
SUNSET Magazine, expresses his regrets at not being able to be
here today and has asked me to outline a couple of the prime con-
clusions of the plan.  As I said, the Commission was formed over
concern for Bay filling but has naturally, as part of its work,
worked very closely with the water pollution and water quality
agencies, both State and Federal, and the level of the conclusions
are for the Bay to provide all the public benefit it can in the
future, water quality must and can and should be maintained at a
suitable level that will permit widespread recreational use of the
Bay and sufficient habitat for all the species of marine life we
deem necessary to keep.

        We believe, as I say, that this can and should be done.  We
have not dealt with this in detail because of the many agencies
concerned with the field of water quality, but we have all been
educated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the
technicians in the field of water quality to understand that every
time a bit of fill goes into the Bay, for whatever purpose, it is

very important.

        As many of you have heard from the statistics, at the time
of the Gold Rush, the Bay included in total something like 680
square miles in area.  Now, as a result of man's diking and filling,
the activities Congressman Mailliard described, the total system
of the Bay is down to not more than 400 square miles.

        If all parts of the present Bay less than 12 feet deep
were to be filled — all the parts described by the u. S. Army
Corps of Engineers as "susceptible of reclamation" — the Bay
would consist of only 187 square miles.  In some places it would
be little more than a river.

        We have become impressed not only with the need for high
water quality for recreation, but with increasing emphasis on
agricultural or mariculture or, that is, the use of coastal
estuaries to increase plant and marine life as a method of feeding
the world's growing population.  While this idea is at an early
stage, it is receiving increasing attention as a very real possi-
bility and one, of course, for which San Francisco Bay might well
be ideally suited, provided water quality can be maintained at a
suitable level.

        To go on to explain the relation of this to Bay filling,
of course, if the shallow parts of this Bay are paved over for
other purposes, then this very important potential use of the Bay
would be lost.

        Let me conclude by saying I noticed in the announcement of
the meeting that you were primarily interested in thoughts on
management of coastal estuaries.  It would appear to us that this
is really the heart of the problem.  I mentioned our Commission
was created by the State Legislature.  It is a unique body of the
country in that it is made up of representatives of Federal,
State and local government.

        The Welfare Department serves as full voting members of
our Commission because of Federal statute.  They do not vote on
fill planning and other activities of the Commission.  In addition,
we have worked closely with the Department of the Interior and the
Housing Urban Development Department, but, as I say, we have
representatives of all levels of government taking part in this
agency, and we have also been told that the kind of planning we
have done and the kind of agency that has done it is really unique
in its conclusion and our findings and our methods of use to other

        It seems to me — I'll express a personal opinion here —
the managing of estuaries is really the heart of the problem.  To

overstate the case, I would say that our problems are ten percent
research.  I assume the researchers in the audience will have
time for rebuttal.

        Our crucial decisions are to act sensibly on what we already
know, and it seems to me we are not yet doing that.  These factors
are much on our minds because our Commission under present law
will expire 90 days after the California Legislature adjourns this
year and, therefore, crucial decisions as to the future of San
Francisco Bay will be made in Sacramento during this session of
the Legislature.

        Our Commission is proposing that there be some kind of
permanent regional agency able to control all filling and dredging
in the Bay from now on out in accordance with the provisions in
our plan.  The heart of the commission's planning is that the Bay
can be made more useful.  It can provide much more in the way of
public benefits than it now does, and in some few instances,
filling will be necessary to achieve this, but that all the water-
related needs providing public benefits can be satisfactorily met
without substantially diminishing the Bay.  At the same time, the
public responsible regional agency is needed, too.

        We have proposed that this can be done in many of several
ways — either an elected regional government or a continuing
agency such as ours.  This is a matter naturally requiring
political decision and political determination.  The Commission's
decision is essentially that the Bay is as big now as it will
probably ever be and what is needed is a permanent responsible
management to see that when our children and grandchildren have
reached the age of those of us in this room today that the Bay
will still be here.

        The Bay does many things and serves many functions.  I
emphasized recreation.  The Bay is, of course, one of the greatest
harbors in the world, and around it are sites, many of which are
important to the economy of the Bay region, so it is extremely impor-
tant all these water-related uses be balanced and that the public
interest consider all these aspects of the Bay.

        We do not believe there is any magic.  We do not believe
there is any computer.  We do not believe there is a problem.
Therefore, we would emphasize that the heart of what is needed
certainly for San Francisco, and I would assume other coastal
estuaries as well, is some kind of politically accountable economic
development, recreation, wildlife, natural beauty.  All of these
values can be taken into account and a sensible system of manage-
ment can prevail.

        I think I have gone on longer than I should.  I appreciate

the opportunity to be heard.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you.  Do you have any questions.  Bill?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I had one question.   Your organization
primarily is concerned then with the filling and the dredging of
the Bay?

        MR. BODOVITZ:  Yes, sir, that is correct.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  That is where your efforts have been —
along that line?

        MR. BODOVITZ:  Yes, sir.  Well, we have worked closely
with the water quality agencies.  We have no legal responsibili-
ties or powers in this field.  There is, in other words, no over-
lapping here.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Did you work on the San Francisco Bay
studies to some extent?

        MR. BODOVITZ:  The Bay Delta?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Yes.

        MR. BODOVITZ:  We worked very closely with the Bay Delta,
and we were represented on some technical and advisory committees.
That was a separate study.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Thank you.

        MR. McCARTY:  Mr. Bodovitz, you mentioned that your report
makes some recommendations, I believe, about the management of
San Francisco Bay.  Does this include management of things other
than the filling and dredging of the Bay?

        MR. BODOVITZ:  Yes.  The Commission concluded that in the
long run sensible management of the Bay will require some limited
controls over what happens in the zone immediately around the
Bay, and the Commission therefore, had the two types of recom-
mendations.  First, with regard to the salt ponds, the large areas
particularly at the south end of the Bay in which salt is harvested
by evaporating the Bay water.  These areas are diked off from the
Bay, but they are important to the ecology of the region for two
reasons.  One is wildlife habitat — that some of these be acquired
as wildlife habitats.

        Even more important is the fact that these salt ponds have
an effect on climate.  The meteorological consultant to our Com-
mission has stated in a report written for our Commission a couple
of years ago that if as much as 25 percent of the present water

surface, including the Bay waters and the salt ponds, were to be
filled, there would be noticeable rises in temperature in the
San Jose area.

        This is based on obviously incomplete research, and this
is one area where more research is needed.  The further studies made
in the intervening two years shows the importance of this large
water surface in moderating climate and combating smog.  For this
reason, the Commission has recommended that the salt production be

        If, for any reason, the salt industry wishes to close
these salt ponds, then the public should make every effort to buy
these lands and open them to the Bay.

        If development is permitted in the salt ponds, it should be
regulated in such a way as to leave as much open water as possible.
That is, whatever development there is should be intensive on a
relatively small amount of fill with as much left open as possible.

        The second area is the existing land.  The Commission has
recommended here that certain areas which we have called priority
areas, ports, industries, airports — whatever — be subject to a
limited amount of regional jurisdiction to provide that as long as
these areas — let me back up a minute — that if an area is suit-
able for port use, it either stay in that use or the regional
agency have the right to say it is no longer needed for that pur-

        The concern is that if a port agency or a water-related
agency sells off part of its land for houses or supermarkets,
there is at least a concern that a few years hence, the same
agency may be back and say we need the land.  The concern is here
that the regional agency be able to keep a running inventory of
the best and water-related industry land and so forth.

        If an area is no longer needed for that purpose, it could
concur.  Otherwise, it would have the right to say it ought to be
retained for that purpose.

        KR. McCARTY:  One other question.  Relating to your
recommendations regarding the regional agency, do you have any
feelings or does your report suggest generally the relationship
of the local people, city and county government, state government
and federal government in this regional agency?

        MR. BODOVITZ:  Our Commission was initially directed by
law to recommend the kind of agency that should carry out its plan.
Subsequent to that, however, the Legislature created a joint
committee, that is. Committee of Senators and Assemblymen, a Bay
Area Regional Organization, and gave it — that joint Committee —

the primary responsibility for making recommendations in the area
of regional organization and directing us to cooperate with them,
but not to proceed with further studies.

        Our Commission did so, and our recommendations, therefore,
are twofold:  First, we have recommended to that joint committee
that if an elected regional government or regional agency with
more than one kind of responsibility is created in the Bay Area,
then control over Bay filling and dredging would be a logical
responsibility for that agency.  We have said if there is a
regional agency created in the Bay Area, we believe at least a
sizable portion of its governing body should be elected, although
the rest could be appointed.

        Secondly, we have said if for any reason such an agency is
not created, then an appointed agency perhaps such as ours should
be continued.  By "such as ours", I think the Commission meant all
levels of government.

        I think one of the things — again a personal opinion
here — I think one of the reasons this kind of planning has worked
has been that all levels of government and the public have been
represented as voting members of the Commission.  There- are many
people who believe that there is an untidily large number, 27, and
it ought to be reduced to five or seven or nine, and we always ask
these people how they would choose the five, seven or nine, and
everybody agrees that might be a good idea, but it is pretty hard
to see how five, seven or nine people are going to fairly repre-
sent everybody who wants to be represented.

        The Bay Area has four and a half million people, which is
a population larger than 35 of the states in the country, and I
do not think having a large governing body is out of keeping with
that kind of complex environment we live in.

        MR. McCARTY:  I think your efforts are unique in the
country in this particular kind of a study, and we are particularly
interested in getting your views or expression of your views on the
management or using this particular management approach in other
parts of the country where estuaries are.

        My last question would be whether or not you feel these
approaches might be suitable in other locations?

        MR. BODOVITZ:  I would see no reason why the general princi-
ples we have tried to follow would not be suitable in other locations.
We have one advantage here that many other estuaries do not, and that
is that San Francisco Bay is located entirely within one state.  My
limited experience in talking to people from other areas is that
when several states are involved and interstate compacts are

required, there are automatically more political and governmental
problems presented.

        I have been involved with some people in at least two such
estuaries, and I have not really seen why once that problem is
licked the same principles should not apply.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Bodovitz.

        I would like now to call on Mr. Trevenen A. Wright with
the California Department of Fish and Game who wishes to make a

        MR. TREVENEN A. WRIGHT:  Mr. McCarty, Mr. Alexander, Ladies
and Gentlemen.  It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to appear
before you today to present our observations on the estuarine
resources of California.  In addition to this oral presentation, we
will submit a written statement with more specific comments for the
proceedings of these hearings.

        By law, the California Department of Fish and Game is charged
with the protection, maintenance and enhancement of all of this
State's fish and wildlife resources.  Whether we succeed or fail
will largely depend on whether we can protect and maintain the
habitat our fish and wildlife must have if they are to survive.

        In the Department's Fish and Wildlife Plan, developed in
1965, we have identified the loss of coastal wetlands, including
bays, estuaries, marshes, sloughs and lagoons as being one of the
major problems of fish and wildlife today.  This loss of habitat
is the result of a number of man's activities in the estuarine
environment, all of which could be classed as pollution in its
broadest sense.  Such activities include dredging, filling, con-
struction of marinas, residential and industrial development and
deposition of wastes, all of which alter the natural environment
and in most instances are detrimental to the fish and wildlife
dependent on that environment.

        I could continue to point out the problems of our fish and
wildlife resource estuary by estuary; however, during the course of
this hearing and the hearing to be held in Los Angeles, I am sure
most of the estuarine problems will be identified.  Rather than be-
labor the problem aspects of the estuarine situation, let's look at
the other side of the coin and see what actions are being taken to
preserve our estuarine environment.

        It is gratifying to see that in the last several years the
public and people at all levels of government have become aware of
the value of our estuarine resource and are now doing something to
preserve it.

        The following, are some of the actions taking place on the
State level where the California Department of Fish and Game is

        1.  The passage of the Marine Resources Conservation and
Development Act of 1967 by the California Legislature calls for the
development of a comprehensive ocean area plan which includes the
estuarine areas.  The Interagency Council on Ocean Resources is now
in the process of preparing this plan.  The Department of Fish and
Game, through the Resources Agency, will be a major contributor to
this plan.

        2.  The passage of the Protected Waterways Act by the
California Legislature in 1968 requires an inventory and identifi-
cation of those waterways having outstanding scenic, fisheries,
wildlife and recreational values and to recommend measures for
their protection.  The definition of a waterway includes bays,
estuaries, lagoons, marshes and wetlands in addition to streams
and lakes.  The Resources Agency is now implementing this Act and
is scheduled to make its first report to the Legislature by
January, 1971.

        3.  The establishment of the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development commission by the Legislature in 1965 has provided
a planning effort that will materially guide the future use of
San Francisco Bay for the benefit of all the people.  The Department
of Fish and Game has been a major contributor to the commission's
plan which has been recently published, as was shown to you by
Mr. Bodovitz.

        4.  As an adjunct to the BCDC effort, the Legislature estab-
lished the San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Program in
1965.  The Department of Fish and Game as one of the agencies
assigned to the study, has completed its portion of the study.
When the final report is submitted to the Legislature in a few
months, it will include recommendations to maintain water quality
to insure and enhance the fish and wildlife environment.

        5.  The Department has been working with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration providing input for their efforts
under the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966.  A report was sub-
mitted in 1967 on the major estuarine areas.

        6.  The Department is now working closely with the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and providing input for the studies
being carried on under Public Law 90-454 the National effort on
estuarine studies.

        7.  We are also working with the military installations
under the "Sikes Act."  A number of fish and wildlife plans have

been drafted for military reservations along the coast.  These
have emphasized the importance of the proper management of
estuarine resources on these bases.  A good example is the excellent
cooperation we have obtained in planning estuarine habitat restora-
tion on Camp Pendleton in San Diego County.

        8.  In early 1968, the Department of Fish and Game began a
Bay and Estuary Study and Planning Program.  Intensive ecological
studies are now being carried out on eleven estuarine areas—
Humboldt Bay, Eel River Delta, Bolinas Lagoon, Tomales Bay, Elkhorn
Slough, Morro Bay, Goleta Slough, Mugu Lagoon, Anaheim Bay, Upper
Newport Bay and Los Penasquitos Lagoon.  These were given highest
priority based on threat time to fish and wildlife values and the
possibility that they might still be preserved.

        The Department of Fish and Game's Bay and Estuary Study
and Planning Program includes the documentation of fish and wild-
life values and the present and projected use and demands of the
estuarine resource.  This information in turn will be presented
to those responsible for planning, development and utilization of
this resource.

        To further document the value of the estuarine resource,
we began a shorebird study in 1968 on a statewide basis.  Once we
have determined the exact needs of the birdlife now living in our
coastal wetland areas, we will be in a much better position to
tell the planners exactly what habitat should be saved to maintain
the species.

        The Department of Fish and Game has been working closely
with the regional Water Quality Control Boards in recommending
water quality standards.  Presently, water quality standards are
being revised and in most cases raised.  However, these standards
must be enforced and penalties must be severe enough so that it
will not be profitable for any group to pollute the State's
coastal waters.

        The Department is increasingly active in studying the
effects of various kinds of pollution in coastal waters.  A team
of professional diver-biologists has made studies of a number of
outfall sites, such as sewers and power plants and has accumu-
lated considerable information on the "before and after" situation
relating to these outfalls.

        Another important action program is being carried out by
the Department through the Wildlife Conservation Board, which is
a capital outlay source having State funds in the form of $750,000
annually derived from the State's horseracing revenues and Federal
funds from a portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
The Wildlife Conservation Board has been and is active in the

acquisition of coastal areas for public access,  recreation and key
ecological areas important for coastal fish and wildlife.

        The data we are gathering in our studies and investigations
is essential if we are to make factual, sound recommendations in
carrying out our responsibility as a Department to conserve,
manage and enhance the living fish and wildlife resources  and en-
vironment.  We must obtain more knowledge about the estuarine
resource as soon as possible in order that present and proposed
modifications of the environment may be properly assessed.

        Documented data on fish and wildlife values and human use
and demand will provide the information needed by the public and
those agencies who are determining and planning for the utili-
zation of our estuarine resource.  We are also confident that
without this information the wildlife resource will not be given
due consideration as has been largely the case to date.

        Lastly, we are thankful and encouraged by the many citi-
zens, individually and in groups, who are actively working to
preserve these valuable coastal wetlands in California. We are
aware as I am sure most of you here are that they are the  moving
force that influences the legislature and the State and local
agencies to carry out needed actions.

        Thank you very much.

        MR. McCARTY:  Mr. Alexander, do you have any questions?

        MR, ALEXANDER:  Yes.  I had one question as to right in the
beginning you were talking about this Resources Development Act of
1967.  You are proceeding with the plan at the present time.  When
do you plan on having that completed?

        MR. WRIGHT:  I am not sure they have set a date yet on the
planned completion.  I know they have outlined it.  I will have to
get that information for you.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Your Department is only contributing a
part to this overall plan?

        MR. WRIGHT:  Right.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  You are putting input into it, and others
are contributing also?

        MR. WRIGHT:  Right, ours is just one agency of several that
are involved in this overall study.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  You plan to have the initial report in 1971

through the Resources Agency; do you know how long that study is
to be?

        MR. WRIGHT:  Its first report would be to the Legislature
in 1971, and I suspect it will have recommendations to perhaps
continue with some additional studies and recommendations that
will come out of this first report.  I am not sure just how long
it will extend.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Thank you for the statement.

        MR. MCCARTY:  I also wanted to thank Mr. Wright and his
Department for the tremendous amount of assistance they have pro-
vided us in developing a statement profile for the State of
California for the various state activities in the areas of
estuarine management and control.  His Department did an excellent
job in providing information along these lines.

        I have one question, Mr. Wright, regarding your relatively
new program — the Bay and Estuary Study and Planning Program.  I
assume this is a Department program rather than a legislatively
directed program; is that correct?

        MR. WRIGHT:  That is correct.

        MR. McCARTY:  And would this be a continuing program?  Do
you have an organization or some sort of setup?

        MR. WRIGHT:  Yes, we have assigned this to our regional
people in the Department, and as soon as we complete these major
ones I mentioned, we expect to continue and complete the studies
on our bays and estuaries up and down the Coast.

        We will also be working on others than those that I have
mentioned if a situation comes up — a critical situation.

        MR. McCARTY:  But this would be a continuing planning
effort that would result in a series or stream of reports on
various kinds of problems and recommendations rather than termi-
nating a specific date; is that correct?

        MR. WRIGHT:  Right.

        MR. McCARTY:  And how do you get the results of these
studies into the various planning agencies — through the publish-
ing of reports?

        MR. WRIGHT:  Yes, we will publicize our reports, but we
will also be involved with the local planning agencies in the area
and work with them and make sure whatever planning agency is going

ahead with the job is aware of our report and aware of our studies
that will fit into the overall planning.

        We have done this on the report on Morro Bay.  We have
made this report up, and it is now in the hands of the local
planning agency.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Wright.

        Next, I would like to call on Mr. Sidney Brooks who repre-
sents the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments.  Mr. Brooks.

        MR. SIDNEY BROOKS:  Mr. McCarty, Mr. Alexander, Ladies and
Gentlemen.  I will be very, very brief this morning.  I have little
more to say than to read the purpose of the Association of Monterey
Bay Area Governments.  It is composed of governmental agencies
concerned with the pollution of waters of Monterey Bay and its
tributaries and its retention as a natural asset for commercial and
recreational purposes.

        This organization is concerned with one of the few rela-
tively unpolluted bays left on the California Coast.  Its concern
is a civic concern.  The organization was started almost three
years ago.  It has been operating in full force for approximately
a year, and it is an amazing organization in that it is a purely
voluntary organization operating under a joint power agreement.

        Cities and counties of the three counties, Santa Cruz,
Monterey and San Benito Counties, which essentially share the same
watershed fronting on Monterey Bay, have joined together to pre-
vent the further pollution of the Bay.

        The sole purpose of the Association is to make studies,
findings and recommendations concerning pollution of the waters of
Monterey Bay.  At the present time, the Association is preparing a
proposal for a major study of the dynamics of the Bay, a determi-
nation of the sources of pollution existing, the probable future
sources of pollution, both from within our own watershed and from
other possible sources, and an evaluation of the assets and the
relative priorities to be established for the utilization of this
tremendous asset of Monterey Bay.

        The Association intends to submit a formal statement within
the next two weeks.

        MR. McCARTYs  And would you like that to be a part of the

        MR. BROOKS:  Please.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Brooks.

        I would next like to call on John P. Harville with the
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, California State Colleges.

        DR. JOHN P. HARVILLE:  Thank you, Mr. McCarty and Mr.
Alexander.  I appreciate also being early on your agenda today as
I have some other commitments I must get to.  I am also pleased
to be able to follow comments from two regional agencies, Joe
Bodovitz of BCDC, and Sid Brooks of the Association of Monterey
Bay Area Governments.  I think these two illustrations of community
action that have been presented do show the kind of grass roots
concern for our resources which have rather lately come upon us
and represents a very important trend for the future.

        I think it is also very heartening that the remarks of
Congressman Mailliard could have come early in this meeting
pointing out the absolute necessity of consideration of many
aspects of human encroachment upon the oceans rather than pollution
alone in, let's say, a narrowly conceived sense.

        On behalf of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, California
State Colleges, I have submitted a written statement which docu-
ments in some detail recent actions in the State of California
leading toward an action program for protection and wide use of
bays and estuaries.

        The Moss Landing Marine Laboratories are particularly con-
cerned with this matter since we are located near the mouth of
Elkhorn Slough with estuarine conditions which make this an ideal
location for destruction and research in the marine sciences.

        Incidentally, I want to interpolate one other comment:
I noticed Joe Bodovitz mentioning a certain amount of confidence
in large groups' management.  I think many of us who have been
in the field of management procedures for some years have a
certain amount of concern for groups being too large.  There is an
assumption if you want a job done right, you have a one-man com-
mittee do it.  The smaller the committee, the action takes place

        May I support strongly the importance of large group
functions if they are well planned in such areas as the public
concern for a resource.  I have been associated with the BCDC
group as a member of an advisory committee for some years, and I
would endorse in terms of our concern for management the effi-
ciency of a large group broadly representative of interested

        I add this note for another reason:  The Moss Landing
Marine Laboratories which I represent are a creation of five

separate sovereign institutions — five California State Colleges --
and we placed with some trepidation a large group in management
of that organization — a policy board with representation from
each college.  I submit for the record that this will work if it
is properly conceived and the people really have a sort of vital
interest in the task at hand that is evidenced by the groups I
have used as examples.

        I would like to talk briefly about the values of estuaries,
and I would like to add certain crux to these values and highlight
some of the more pertinent actions of the last few years that have
not so far been mentioned in today's meeting which implement a
program of estuarine protection.  Finally, I would like to make
some comments for consideration of optimum use of these scarce

        In terms of primary values of estuaries, the National
Estuarine Pollution Study accepts certain premises concerning value
as expressed under "Frame of Reference" in the March, 1968, Sum-
mary Booklet.  Many of these were very eloquently restated by
Joe Bodovitz a few moments ago.

        I would like to speak to three points:  First, I would like
to say something about recent dollar value estimates for near-
shore waters of California which I think are illustrative; second,
I would like to document in terms of living laboratory values a
specific estuary, that of Elkhorn Slough and Moss Landing, as an
outdoor laboratory for educational and scientific research pur-
poses; and third, very briefly to comment on particular ecological
significance of the shallow water areas of estuaries — again a
point that Joe Bodovitz made earlier.

        Bill Clarke of Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory in
September of 1967 produced an interesting assessment of uses and
values for California's nearshore environment.  He identified, sub-
divided and briefly analyzed five classes of uses of the nearshore
waters.  These classes were recreational which includes fishing,
boating, swimming, camping, and so on; commercial which includes the
fisheries, kelp harvesting, oil, salt, harbor development; scien-
tific which includes education and research and developmental
functions; waste disposal, and this includes domestic, agricul-
tural, industrial sewage, garbage, thermal and saline wastes; and
then he also paid some attention to some future uses not yet well
established in terms of underwater habitation, the use of fresh
water from the sea, aquaculture, nutrients, and so on.

        Many of these actual or potential uses are directly com-
peting, and some, of course, are mutually excluding.  All must be
considered in assessing the potential value of any segment of the
nearshore environment.  Most will figure to greater or less extent

in the decision-making process for shoreline and nearshore water

        Dr. Clarke made some estimates on the total annual value of
California's nearshore waters and estimated these for the entire
State in excess of one and a quarter billion dollars.  More than
two thirds of this value — and this is a rather surprising
figure — he assigns to recreational use — some 887 million
dollars per year, of which tourist expenditures account for 450
million, boating 316 million, sport fishing 107 million.  He
evaluates commercial uses at nearly 390 million dollars, with
seawater cooling for power generation accounting for 213 million
of that total, oil industry 138 million, and commercial fisheries
23 million.

        He estimates waste disposal at sea at 9.4 million as the
value of annual savings through deposition of sewage at sea as
opposed to some alternate means of handling it.  May I emphasize,
out of the one and a quarter billions of dollars in his estimate,
he believes that some three fourths of this lies in the recre-
ational significance of this area.  I am sorry, that should be
two thirds.

        Now certainly, I would hope and I would very strongly urge
that we never trap ourselves into making decisions only in terms
of dollar values, but it is time that we began to attach economic
significance to some of these things that are very hard to put
dollar signs upon.

        Let me turn to another aspect of values and speak in terms
of our own estuary at Moss Landing, the Moss Landing-Elkhorn
Slough complex with the tributary streams that flow into it.  This
is a rather small enibayment; only a fraction of the size of San
Francisco Bay.  Yet, it is a priceless living laboratory which lies
very close to the population centers of Central California and has
ready access for students and faculties — none more than a half
hour away.  There are three community colleges, three junior
colleges in our area, and then four advanced institutions with
four-year programs and graduate work for advance research by marine
scientists and engineers.

        These senior institutions cover a remarkable gamut of the
educational system of this State, and indeed, of the Nation.  They
include the University of California at Santa Cruz, Stanford
University's Hopkins Marine Station at Pacific Grove, the U. S.
Navy's Postgraduate School at Monterey, and the California State
Colleges• Marine Laboratories at Moss Landing.  The Postgraduate
School in Monterey is the only institution of its kind in the
United States, providing master's and doctoral level education for
Marine Naval Officers.

        The facilities of Stanford and the University of California
serve two illustrious university systems.

        Hopkins Marine Station at Pacific Grove is the oldest
facility of its kind on the Coast.

        The Moss Landing Marine Laboratories provide marine science
educational and research opportunities for students from five
Central California colleges, operating the year around with an
enrollment averaging 60.

        Incidentally, those five colleges enroll a total of some
60,000, about one third of the total enrollment of the State
Colleges.  Recent estimates of educational and research uses of
Elkhorn Slough indicate that college students invest nearly 5,000
man-days per year in support of their academic career objectives.
These 5,000 man-days involve some 1200 college students.  Many of
these are on single-day field trips from schools outside the
Monterey Bay Area, but perhaps 200 are resident students engaged
in long-term studies for which the estuary is a central living
laboratory.  We can add another 2,000 man-days for high school
student use and for elementary school use, and our conservative
estimates indicate that in this one area, this use will increase
by 50 to 60 percent over the next five years.

        These use figures cannot be equated to dollars, nor
should they be.  Their significance in terms of investment in the
future is truly incalculable.

        I might add as a matter of the growing concern for this
use that in a recent effort to retain the quality of Elkhorn
Slough at the highest possible levels rather than permitting it to
be degraded below those levels, the State Water Quality Control
authorities were most impressed by the importance of this edu-
cational resource, the investment we have in the future of our
State and our Nation in the young people we are training.  The
point is that this may be vastly more important in any investment
than say X pounds of shellfish such an estuary may produce.

        In terms of my third point, I would like to stress
especially the role of the shallow waters, the marshes and the
mudflats, which Mr. Bodovitz pointed out to you today, in relation
to filling and diking and various types of exploitation.  This is
an area of concern which is obvious to the ecologist but hard to
develop in the eyes of the layman who is inclined to wonder just
what good is a raudflat and what we really lose by sacrificing some
of it and retaining perhaps a little which will serve as a resting
ground for birds and a few other things.

        I have been told by those who are responsible for influ-
encing decision making that this is one of our greatest tasks, and
so as an ecologist, I must take this opportunity to stress in the
strongest possible terms the critical nature of the shallow waters

of an estuary in maintaining the health of that system as a living
system.  We might best start this consideration with the salt
marshes which are extraordinarily fertile.  Living marsh plants
fix the energy of sunlight into their tissues through photo-
synthesis, and expel oxygen to the surrounding environment.  Thus,
primary productivity is high in the marshes.

        Birds and waterfowl of various sorts and many other animals
come to the marshes drawn by the lush vegetation, and they add
their metabolic wastes to the system, and the decomposition of
these wastes plus those of the decaying plants form the basis of
a very complex food web and contribute nutrients from the marshes
to the shallows of the bay margin supporting a vast marine-life

        The mudflats, themselves, are converters of energy derived
from nearby environments, including the marshes.  In addition,
their moist surface provides the habitat for highly productive
minute algae.

        Each ebb and flow of the tide exposes these tiny plants
alternately to abundant light energy and to the high nutrient
content of the shallow bay waters.  Every tidal interchange
injects oxygen into the water, and thereby contributes to the sup-
port of marine life and the reduction of pollution.

        If we permit our estuaries to be converted to rivers, if
we permit them to be degraded from our living system, then we
destroy them and we create of them merely open sewers to the sea
rather than elements of a living system.

        Now, major threats to our estuaries are, most of them, a
product of failure to perceive the multitude of long-range values
in these estuaries and to plan, therefore, in a multi-purpose
use for the future.  Rather, we are inclined to see the short-term
values, and the short-term values that can be developed from single-
purpose exploitation, and we use up the estuaries in the quest for
quick use rather than — as Joe Bodovitz put it so well this
morning — rather than retaining them for future use.

        Of course, the thrust of your estuaries and the thrust of
our concern this morning is in terms of pollution, but I would
remind all of us that pollution comes in many forms.  Receiving
waters convenient to populations are the convenient place to put
massive discharges of domestic and industrial wastes, and in
California, especially, because these estuaries are usually close
to passes in the mountains.  This makes a very convenient and
inexpensive place for dumping the highly dangerous agricultural
wastes that occur in our great central valleys.  Indegradable com-
pounds the sewage effluents from domestic sources and so on can

be guided if they are not in excess and if the shallows and other
healthy conditions of a living estuary are maintained.  They cannot
be guided if the shallows are degraded to where the estuary is
nothing but a pipeline to the sea.  Degradable components cannot
be, so here I mean the heavy metals and the waste.  These, in my
judgment, constitute the most serious immediate threat not only
to estuarine health, but to the entire ocean system, and it is
high time that we sought ways to fight this problem and its
source.  You do not solve it by degrading materials into the ocean
on the assumption that once you pipe them beyond the door yard of
the community, they are out of sight and out of mind.

        Other aspects of what might be thought of as pollution, of
course, are such things as siltation from mismanagement of our up-
land areas contributes to pollution of the estuaries.

        Single-purpose depletion and destruction by other than
pollution, by the cancerous development of the shoreline buildings,
shoreline modification so that the amenities of the estuary are
degraded and become unattractive, the shantytown condition that we
see along so much of our coastline, ugly and dangerous waterfronts
and shorelines — these, too, constitute a threat to the total
value of the estuary.

        The dredging and filling and other destructive matters
constitute a threat.  California's concern for estuaries and their
health is well known.  We have documented some of this already
here today, but I would like to just mention a couple of points
that may not be stressed unless I bring them up here.

        First, in terms of California's particular concern, it is
a product of our population and growth as much as anything else.
California's leaders are increasingly aware of a need for pro-
tecting the priceless values of our some thousands of wave-wash
coastline, and some people have estimated about 650 miles of
additional shoreline in our estuaries.  All of these are irre-
placeable assets vunerable to the technological changes that have
ever changed any people any place on earth.

        Since World War II, this State has doubled in population
and has shifted from industry and technology and urbanized centers
to become the most populous state in the Nation.  Most of its
growth has been concentrated along the Coast.  Some 13 million
Californians now live within an hour's drive of the Pacific, and
people tell us that this population should approach 20 million by

        I documented various aspects of this concern in written
materials, and I will not repeat them here.  I do want to call
attention to one other State group which has not been mentioned so
far, and these are the two advisory commissions that were created

first by the government.  Governor Brown appointed the Governor's
Advisory Commission on Ocean Resources, and this was reappointed
by Governor Reagan, and in 1968 it was given legislative mandate
and broadened responsibilities as the California Advisory
Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources.  This group, recog-
nizing the critical nature of our estuary conditions, the
irreversible changes that are taking place, the fact that we are
running out of time, has placed a very high priority on the estab-
lishment of estuarine reserves.

        From the fourth meeting of this group — and I quote:
"The commission recommended that State Government accord high
priority to immediate establishment of reserves in certain bay
and estuarine areas that are rapidly being irreversibly modified
by man's action."

        This was given the highest priority because of the fact
the time is running out.

        The Commission supported the statement in the Institute of
Marine Resources Report that "It is important that a sufficient
number and variety of typical marine habitats be set aside as
marine reserves to insure the survival of all species of marine
plants, invertebrates, fishes, mammals, and waterfowl to preserve
the various types of communities.  This is necessary in order to
maintain large heterogeneous natural gene pools for the future use
of mankind; to provide outdoor museums for education and public
enjoyment and to supply intellectual and aesthetic appreciation;
to make possible scientific research on organisms and communities
in their natural state."

        The recommendation of this commission which I think is
worth noting is that, and I quote:  "Some marine environments
should be maintained by the State for low-density use and should be
protected from excessive human interference," as I would hope that
we never try to equate all values in dollar signs.  I hope we will
realize that we cannot evaluate values in terms of number of people.
There are uses of the environment which call for low-density use.

        Two recommendations of the Governor's Advisory Commission
which have been implemented by the bodies represented here today
include the preparation on a routine basis — and I am quoting:
"Prepare on a routine basis a detailed inventory of all waste
discharges (municipal, industrial, and agricultural) to the waters
of the State."  This goes on to say, "Of especial interest is an
inventory of wastes discharged to estuarine and coastal waters."

        Another recommendation was, "for assignment of beneficial
water uses and establishment of general criteria for the quality
of receiving waters for those ocean and estuarine waters located

near population centers."

        I think it is worth noting here that these recommendations
came well ahead of the establishment of some of the Federal poli-
cies that have been cited here.  They illustrate the fact that
while this State has suffered grievously by lack of planning and
lack of proper development of its estuaries, there is a growing
recognition on the part of our officers and the public generally
of our responsibility in this connection.

        The final quote of this body I would bring to the attention
of this group today is that in November of last year at a meeting
held in Sacramento the Committee made a specific recommendation
for this program of an environment data collection in California
nearshore waters.  I will quote:

        "In order to augment higher education in the marine
sciences, expand field research activities of prime importance to
decision-making, and provide meaningful information services to
the people of California, the California Advisory Commission on
Marine and Coastal Resources recommends that a coordinated program
of nearshore environmental data collection and analysis be

        "This continuing effort should encompass the total coast-
line of California.  It should be implemented principally by
California's educational institutions so that they can provide
expanded student opportunities for field research, and at the same
time develop the detailed environmental inventories and relative
base-line data which are requisite to effective decision-making
in the development of California's coastline."

        As an educator, you might expect that I am particularly
heartened by this recognition of the opportunity for our need for
information, our need for data collection and analysis to be
coupled with the educational institutions of this State.  It is
interesting to note in this regard, in 1962, I believe it was, I
edited the first directory of marine stations on the Pacific
Coast.  At that time there were 18.  The present issue, some six
or seven years later, lists over 50 for the Pacific Coast.

        Now, this growth in marine facilities, in marine stations
operated by educational institutions represents a growth far in
excess of any growth in the educational system as a whole.  Rather,
it represents a turning of educational and  research studies toward
the sea and the estuaries.  If we are to properly train and man
our sources, it must be in the reality of the living source, not
from textbooks alone.

        Again, as you might expect, a major thrust of my concern

today is that we will be sure as we analyze the estuaries and seek
ways to protect them that we see this as a part of our responsi-
bility to the future of our training of manpower.  I think it is
not necessary for me here to say very much about the best uses
for estuaries.  This has been well covered by the other speakers.

        I think the key, the heart, of this concern rests with
our establishment of a multi-purpose use for estuarine development.
Our recognition of this as a reality, a must mandate, not merely
a set of words that we use because they are popular today, but as
a frame of reference, that we make our policy decision in deciding
which way our estuaries will go.

        The State Planning Commission of California used several
phrases in a 1965 document which have influenced me a very great
deal.  They spoke of environmental amenities which have attracted
to this coastline the people that have made this a great State,
not only the people, but the insurance and commercial developments
that have made of this the most populous State in the Nation.
Another is that they said that the hallmarks of good planning in
natural resource development lies with a concern for retaining
the right for future choice or choice to future generations, and
this means that we must look to ways in which our estuaries can
serve the many functions that they are capable of rather than
permitting them to be destroyed or degraded or used up for short-
term and nonmulti-purpose use.

        I have other notes, but I have run a little overtime.  I
think I will stop there.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you. Dr. Harville.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I don't believe I have any questions.  I
want to compliment the Doctor on a very excellent presentation and
the fine paper and the time that he has spent in preparation of it.

        DR. HARVILLE:  My pleasure.

        MR. McCARTY:  I, too, would like to add my thanks for your
very timely statement.  I think it is very pertinent, particularly
your comments regarding the values of estuaries and the need for
recognizing these values.

        DR. HARVILLE:  I can only add, sir, I think this is one of
the responsibilities that we in the educational field have.

        MR. McCARTY:  I would like to call a brief recess here.
Those of you who wish to have coffee, I believe there is a
cafeteria on the second floor.  We will reconvene at eleven o'clock
and receive statements for perhaps half an hour to an hour and then
recess again for lunch.

        ...The Hearing was reconvened at 11:00 o'clock a.m.  ...

        MR. McCARTY:  Ladies and gentlemen,  we will reconvene the
meeting here.

        (At which time Mr. McCarty named three individuals and asked
if they were in the audience and no response was made.)

        MR. McCARTY:  Is there anyone in the audience who would  like
to make a statement for the record here today?  If there are no
other people wishing to make a statement, we will recess the
meeting again and reconvene at two o'clock.   I am sorry that you
had to wait over the coffee break for this,  but we had expected
several other speakers later on this morning who apparently did  not
show up.

        So, we will be back at two o'clock.   We have several
speakers scheduled at two o'clock and again at seven this evening.

        (Luncheon Recess.)

        ...The Hearing was reconvened at 2:00 o'clock p.m. ...

        MR. McCARTY:  Ladies and gentlemen,  our meeting is back  in
sessions.  Before we begin, I would like to read into the record
the various local agencies and firms that are represented here
today:  The City of Newport Beach; the City of San Francisco; Marin
Municipal Water District; Solano County Department of Public Health;
Alameda Public Works; San Pablo Sanitary District; Santa Clara County
Health Department; the Sierra Club; the League of Women Voters;  the
Pacific Gas and Electric; Standard Oil of California; Phillips
Petroleum Company; Crown Zellerbach; Ideal Cement Company, and a
number of consulting firms.  I won't read all of the names.  There
are five State agencies and about 14 Federal agencies.

        Some of these that I have read will be making statements
either this evening or tomorrow morning.  In addition, I would like
to mention again that in an attempt to bring as many people as
possible out for this sort of a meeting, we mailed some 1400
invitations and had hoped for perhaps a greater response, but we
know by experience that this sort of thing does happen in public
meetings unless you have a very controversial type of issue to
bring before the group.

        I have one speaker for this afternoon who wishes to make a
statement:  Mr. Martin Roche of the Regional Office of the U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation.  Mr. Roche.

        MR. MARTIN ROCHE:  Thank you, Mr. Mccarty, Mr. Alexander.
On behalf of our Regional Director, R. J. Pafford, Jr., I would

like to express our appreciation for being given the opportunity
to present a statement at this public meeting today.  As the
Department of the Interior's principal action agency for water
resources development for over 60 years, the Bureau of Reclamation
is vitally concerned with the development and protection of water
resources for all beneficial uses.  Therefore, we are concerned
with the maintenance and enhancement of water quality conditions
in estuaries.  Of primary concern in our Region 2, which is head-
quartered in Sacramento, is the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary.

        Since 1944 the Bureau has operated the Central Valley
Project to generally repel sea water intrusion in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta.  This control has protected 700,000 acres of
agricultural lands in the Delta, and has annually maintained the
quality of about 4 million acre-feet of water for use in the
Delta, in Contra Costa County, and in the San Joaquin Valley.

        With the increase in water use in the Central Valley, the
quantities of water released into the Suisun Bay portion of the
estuary will be changed.  The effects of this change on fish and
wildlife in the Bay are currently being studied by the Bureau of
Reclamation.  Present values are substantial, and measures to
mitigate or enhance these values are being planned.

        The Bureau is presently constructing the San Luis Drain, a
188-mile canal to carry agricultural return flow from the San Luis
Service Area in the San Joaquin Valley to be discharged at a point
in the estuary near Antioch, California.  The continued economic
growth of the San Joaquin Valley is dependent on the provision of
this needed drainage facility.  Many public and private groups
have expressed fears as to the possible effects that this return
flow might have on the water quality of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta, as well as the rest of the Bay Area.  The Bureau of
Reclamation has taken the lead in initiating two extensive inves-
tigations seeking information which will provide a basis for
operations which will protect the water quality of this important

        The Delta-San Luis Drain Surveillance program was initiated
in 1967 to identify the quality of water conditions in the estuary
as they exist today, to determine what effects, if any, the
San Luis Drain water might have on the estuary, and to determine
what steps should be taken to protect the quality of water in the
estuary.  The program includes the monthly collection and analysis
of samples for physical, chemical and biological characteristics,
studies of biological productivity, and studies of biological
potential under laboratory conditions.  The study, while conducted
by the Bureau, draws upon the knowledge, skills and experience of
many agencies.  Contributing to the program are the U. S. Corps of
Engineers, U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,  the California
Department of Water Resources, California Department of Fish and
Game, California Department of Public Health, the State Water
Resources Control Board, and the San Francisco Bay and Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

        A primary concern is the possible effect that the nitrogen
in the drainage water might have on the estuary.  A program was
therefore initiated in 1967 to develop an economically feasible
method for removing nitrogen from the drainage waters.  The
Firebaugh Research Program is a joint venture of the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
and the California Department of Water Resources.  Present plans
are that the three-year program will terminate in 1970, and that
the results obtained from this research will provide the basis for
developing design criteria to facilitate the removal of nitrogen
from the drainage water in the most economical manner.

        Summarizing these two studies, the Delta-San Luis Drain
Surveillance Program will evaluate the degree of treatment that
is needed, and the Firebaugh Research Program will serve to indi-
cate the best method of providing treatment.  We are confident that
knowledge gained from these two programs will not only enable us to
protect the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary from detrimental effects
of the drain, but will also develop valuable information for the
proper water quality management of other estuaries.

        For the future preservation, development, and use of
estuaries, it may be desirable to allocate a portion of the water
supply for water quality control.  This may be advantageous on
occasions where it is more practical to maintain quality through
removal of undesirable pollutants rather than exclusively through
waste treatment.  Efforts should be directed not only towards
studying the problems of estuaries, but should include the
development of plans for implementing the improvements needed.

        MR. MCCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Roche.

        Do you have any questions, Bill?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  In your study, the Firebaugh Research
Program, you are studying other things than just the nitrogen
removal, aren't you?  Are you familiar with that study?

        MR. ROCHE:  Somewhat.  Nitrogen is the main thing that is
being studied.  The drain water will be from subsurface drains,
and the only thing that really concerns us is the nitrogen in the
water.  The drain water percolation of the soil removes most of
the phosphates and pesticides so that these were studied earlier
by the State of California, and they pretty well concluded that

these would not be a problem..

        MR. ALEXANDER:  That the pesticides would not be a problem
in the drain water?

        MR. ROCHE:  Right.  I think there would be lower concen-
trations than are found in the Delta now.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  And only subsurface drain water is going
to be permitted in the drain?

        MR. ROCHE:  We will exclude all other drainage water from
the San Luis Drain.  We will not allow people along the line to
discharge water into the drain which might contain high bacteria
count or domestic sewage.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Do you have any recent knowledge as to how
the nitrogen program is coming along for the removal — what the
present —

        MR. ROCHE:  Well, when the program was started about two
years ago, there were I think eight or ten or a dozen possible
solutions, possible ideas to remove nitrogen, and from these,
they picked about four that were worth further study that they
thought would be economically feasible.

        We are working with two presently that show promise.  One
is the algae stripping where they put the water in a large pond
and can promote growth and strip off the algae, and the other is
this bacteria process.  They run water through a filter or porous
media to promote the bacteria to change the nitrogen into gas form.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Thank you very much.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Roche.

        Do we have anyone else in the audience who wishes to make
a statement at this time?

        If not, I will briefly go over our plans for the rest of
the day and tomorrow so that any of you who wish to remain for some
later speakers can do so, and this will give you some idea on how
we plan to conduct the meeting.

        We received word that there are three people who would like
to speak beginning some time around 3:00 to 3:30.  Therefore, we
are going to recess the meeting again and reconvene at 3:30 to
allow these people to make their statements.  We will then recess
until seven this evening.

        We have on the agenda today now five people who wish to
make statements, two from the academic community and three from
the Sierra Club.

        Tomorrow morning, we have on the program Congressman Waldie
and John DeVito from the Contra Costa County Water District.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I think, Mr. McCarty, this might give them
opportunity for any of them here to prepare a statement in the
next hour.

        MR. McCARTY:  You have a whole hour to put together anything
you want to say here.  We are particularly interested in getting
some of the smaller organizations — in getting their opinions out
here if we can, and if you feel you have the time and would like to
make a statement or prepare one, you have between now and at the
very latest tomorrow morning at nine o'clock to do so.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  It seems like we are very well represented
by agencies and various forms of government, but we haven't had
too many individuals testify.

        MR. McCARTY:  We would like a few private citizens to give
us the real cold hard facts here.  Maybe during this evening's
session they will be able to get off work and give us some state-
ments .

        With that, we will adjourn again until 3:30 and hope for
the best.


        ...The Hearing was reconvened at 3:30 p.m. ...

        MR. McCARTY:  Ladies and gentlemen, we are again in
session.  Our first speaker this afternoon at this particular point
in time will be Dr. Thomas Harvey from San Jose State College.  For
those of you who may not know. Dr. Harvey plans to provide us with
a slide show here.  We have got the room partially darkened for
his benefit.  Dr. Harvey.

        DR. H. THOMAS HARVEY:  I see there are not many here today,
but just like many groups which you have attended recently, it is
not the quantity that counts; it is the quality.  So, I am glad to
see as many of you here as are because I would like to attempt to
give answers to the five interesting questions that are raised here
at this hearing.

        I represent, I guess, a variety of groups who have endorsed
some of what I will have to say — perhaps not all when they hear

what I do have to say — but certainly I speak specifically in
favor of the establishment of a South Bay Wildlife Refuge.   This
has been endorsed by local Audubon Societies, the Sierra Club's
Bay Area Chapter of the Sierra Club and the National Board  of
Directors of the Sierra Club, and the Save the Bay Association is
also in favor of such an establishment, and we are also in  the
process — legislation has already been introduced in Congress —
House Bill 2749 is already before them suggesting or recommending
to the Secretary of the Interior the establishment of such  wild-
life refuge.  I will come back to that, but I think rather  today
I would like to introduce this as one of the answers to the
collection of questions which have been raised that we might
address ourselves to.

        So, without further ado, let's see a slide or two.

        MR, McCARTY:  Dr. Harvey, I would like to point out one
thing we mentioned in the beginning you may not be aware of.  The
proceedings of this meeting are being recorded and will be  pub-
lished in transcript form.  It will all be in black and white,
and I am wondering whether you would like to have these slides
included as a part of the transcript?  If you do, they will all
come out in black and white.

        DR. HARVEY:  That is all right with me.  Wait until you
see the slides, and you can decide whether you want some of them
or not.  You are welcome to have them to reproduce them if  you wish.

        MR. McCARTY:  Okay, thank you.

        DR. HARVEY:  We have tried out the slide machine, and you
will find it presents some difficulties, but we will go with that.
I hope to have a little light over here.

        There were five questions asked, and the first one  was,
"What are the values of estuarine systems such as we have here in
San Francisco Bay?"  And it certainly is a challenge to try to
enumerate these as I see them.

        They are of particular interest to those of us who  teach
ecology or conduct research in such rich and unique habitats.


        As you look here at a part of the salt marsh at Palo Alto,
which is one of the few remaining expanses of it in the South San
Francisco Bay, calculations have been made that close to 80 percent
of the salt marshes in San Francisco Bay have already been  des-
troyed, and so those of us who were involved in the teaching of an
outdoor science course such as ecology depend on the few fragments

which are left.  They are of value to us because they possess
plants with strange capacities to excrete salt and to withstand
internal cellular pressures 20 times that of ordinary land plants.
So, they have unique forms of life.  What you see here is essentially

         (Next Slide)

        The next slide shows that there are a few brightly flowered
species such as this mum plant which exists at higher grounds.

         (Next Slide)

        The next slide will show a close-up of this cordgrass with
one of the plants capable of the salt excretion, and adjacent to
it, pickleweed, and the two of them constitute the major kinds of
plants in our salt marshes around San Francisco Bay.

        These land plants which have returned to the edge of the
sea are apparently among the most productive of all known non-
cultivated plants.  They seem to be capable of such fantastic
yields approaching 10 to 15 tons per acre per year.  Most of this
food apparently goes into the estuarine waters to serve as the
basis and to try to serve as a bottom link in the food chain.

         (Next Slide)

        If we take a close look at pickleweed, we find there are
other things to wonder about it.  We find it here entwined with a
weed relative known simply as dodder.  It is a semi-parasite which
serves to raise the question of how one living form may exist
dependent upon another.

         (Next Slide)

        A closer view I think on the next slide emphasizes this
very intimate relationship where the yellow vine penetrates the
green pickleweed to get some of its food in that manner.

        Estuaries are known to be the nurseries for sports fish
and other fish which in turn provide recreational values for
thousands of people around the Bay Area.

         (Next Slide)

        Now, somehow this got interspersed at this point as one of
the unique scientific values of particularly South San Francisco.
They're not quite as awesome of creatures as you might first
suspect because most of what you see is shadow  above them.  That
small animal is an endangered species of harvest mouse, simply

called the Red-Bellied Harvest Mouse.  I realize some people do
not care about harvest mice or birds or plants, but some of us do
because they are of scientific value as to how it is that they got
there, how they are able to maintain themselves and how any en-
dangered species may be on the edge of extinction due to the
activities of man, and in this case, in largely the removal of its

        I could add later, but I will add at this point that some
have raised the question even though it occurs in great numbers
that there is a species that may well be an endangered species,
itself, and that, of course, is ours, for as we continue to pro-
liferate and produce pollutants, both in land, water and air, the
question is, "Can we continue to tolerate that at the increasing
rate of increase?"

        (Next Slide)

        You see a view that suggests that in estuarine areas, not
only is there the water environment, per se, but as it comes in
across the mudflats and into the marsh, then it is able to make
this exchange, bringing with it nutrients to serve as fertilizer
for the marsh plants, in turn, taking food produced by those
marsh plants out onto the flats and into the water to be utilized
by other organisms.  It is from this constant interaction that a
web of life is built up with interdepending organisms, as well as

        (Next Slide)

        The next slide shows one of the relationships which I think
we all appreciate, the simple fact that from a productive habitat
there can be recreational sources for human beings, because the
fish that these kids are fishing for must ultimately depend on
some kind of plant food as the food base.

        (Next Slide)

        This is simply showing a variety of perch, which can be
fished for by children along San Francisco Bay.

        (Next Slide)

        This striped bass perhaps stands as the one species for
sports fishing, as you perhaps are aware.  Estimating a value some-
times placed at around $23 million a year spent on sports fishing
in San Francisco Bay Area, this one fish accounts for the major
portion of that.

        (Next Slide)

        Hunting has also been placed in monetary values,  but I
suggest some of the other things, other values— scientific,
educational — are equally important.  It has been placed at a
worth of close to $7 million a year, and these are rather healthy
economies as far as I can see it, and they, of course, depend on
healthy estuaries, a community based on not only water quality, but
on healthy marsh plants and phyto-plankton.

        I suggest even further that the health of citizens around
the Bay may be evaluated on a dollars and cents basis.  I do not
know that anyone has yet made that calculation, but I suggest that
there is value to open space.  There is value to those areas which
reduce smog increase.  There are values in a mental health way for
providing recreation of the sort that has just been mentioned.

        Thus, I think the establishment of areas for continued
natural healthy environments, not only for the organisms that live
there, but for us, is of paramount importance.

        By leaving the estuary natural, the environment is not
loaded with additional pollutants detrimental to healthy lives,
and thus we are saved the added expense of compensating for these

        Although subject to some variation of interpretation,  it
has been presently estimated that it takes about an acre of shallow
water in South San Francisco to oxidize the domestic effluent from
200 homes.  If these shallow waters are destroyed, not only is
this oxidation of the effluent destroyed but if additional efflu-
ents are produced on that acre, we are in a real sense burning the
candle at both ends.  To destroy the capacity of the estuary means
that we must pay to construct sewage treatment facilities to take
care of them.  We have just recently passed several million dollar
bond issues in San Jose-Santa Clara combined for sewage treatment
expansion.  It doesn't change the treatment.  It merely enables
the sewage plant to handle more waste and treat it only with
secondary treatment, although I hasten to add secondary treatment
certainly improves things over what they were a few years ago.

        (Next Slide)

        I was mentioning the pleasure that comes from hunting and
recreational activities.  There are some who merely enjoy seeing
these wild forms* including such diving ducks such as this Golden

        (Next Slide)

        It is such an active diver that the next slide shows you

the position you usually find it in.  That's the rear end of a
Golden Eye diving down to get food in the mud.

        (Next Slide)

        Some merely enjoy the aesthetic qualities that bird watching
has provided for them.  This is a Snowy Egret which somewhat re-
stores my faith in the bird world because in general, I think of
them as not being too bright, but at least this one has sense to
stand on a covert and wait for its food to come by.

        (Next Slide)

        They also serve as a base for learning about the relation-
ship of organisms to their environment, and here almost in textbook
style are birds of different lengths of leg and bill positioned
along a shoreline in the in-moving tide so that they are not in
direct competition with one another.  In fact, one is so short-
legged and short-billed that it does not even get out in the water,
and that is that little gray blob over on the right, which is a
kind of Sandpiper.

        So, there are lessons to be learned here about the role of
adaptation of various structures, of capacity of various forms, of
life to maintain themselves in a particular environment.

        (Next Slide)

        It perhaps goes without saying that there are maay others
who look upon the Bay as a place for recreation in the form of
sailing, but I am sure you are aware that much of San Francisco
Bay does not allow one to partake of body contact sports because
of the level of pollution.  Water skiing is not a popular activity
in South San Francisco Bay, and I think it could and should be
made available.  It costs something, though, as I have already
indicated, because as we increase the amount of effluent that we
dump in, the more it is going to take to clean it up.

        (Next Slide)

        It is not entirely clear what several roles the estuarian
waters may play in the abatement of air pollution, but I am in-
clined to take the word of Dr. Miller who has suggested that it
plays a direct role in the fact that if as little as 25 percent
of the San Francisco Bay surface were converted from water to land,
that at least in San Jose we would get an average temperature
change approaching five degrees, and what this does, then, is to
change the inversion layer regime so it occurs more frequently in
winter, which is another way of saying the lid would be on longer
and the smog buildup, thus, greater if that sort of change was

triggered off.  Possibly a word of caution is all that one can
express at this time because the facts are hard to come by, but the
knowledge at present and the theories which apply to this knowledge
indicate that we should be very cautious about changing our environ-
ment in such drastic fashion.

        (Next Slide)

        This gives you some idea of the current water quality in a
portion of San Francisco Bay.  I will have you just look at it.
Perhaps some of you have been there.  I often point out that this
happens to be the sewer outfall of one of the culturally advanced
communities in the Bay.  This is at Palo Alto.  They speak for

        (Next Slide)

        Of course, I would be remiss as a general ecologist if I
did not suggest to you where the root of this problem lies, and
that is in the unrestricted continuing accelerated growth of the
population of California, particularly into the urban areas — the
population explosion, as it is called.  Santa Clara County has the
distinction of being rated as the fourth fastest growing county
in the United States.  We grow at a rate of about 40,000 a year.
We have some one million in the County already.  We destroy from
agricultural lands some 10 acres a day, so I wonder where we are

        (Next Slide)

        I would be also remiss if I did not suggest that there are
aesthetic values, but I recognize immediately that beauty is in
the eye of the beholder.  Most people, I think, can respond to a
waving stand of marsh grasses.  I like mudflats, but some people
do not.  To say that one thing is aesthetically valuable to one
person is about all that you can say, but I do find many things of
great aesthetic value, including mudflats in San Francisco Bay.

        (Next Slide)

        A bird in flight.

        (Next Slide)

        (Next Slide)

        (Next Slide)

        Even the duck hunter has some appreciation beyond the sport,
I am sure, for the aesthetic qualities that creatures like this

        (Next Slide)

        Here is a species that is not often seen unless you catch
them as they are shown here at extremely high tide — clapper Rails,

        (Next Slide)

        Although this is of shell mussels or rib mussels, it moves
us on to the question of, "Well, what kind of damage is being done
by pollution?

        One of the figures which I quote to you is that from Ted
Wooster from the California Department of Pish and Game which
estimates because of the quarantine on shellfish over most of San
Francisco Bay, somewhere near 200,000 man-days per year of
recreational clam digging are lost to people around San Francisco

        From Dr. Ganssle's studies at the University of San
Francisco, commercial sewage is indicated as reducing the numbers
and kinds of invertebrates near their outfalls.  Whether this, in
turn, serves to reduce other marine forms, of course, is yet to be

        Again, in 1963, Ganssle suggested that pollution adversely
affected salmon migration, which in turn would decrease the sub-
sequent spawning and future populations and thus make inroads into
the eventual commercial fisheries.

        (Next Slide)

        Now, this is just a close view of ribbed mussels.

        (Next Slide)

        And salmon which I was just referring to.

        (Next Slide)

        (Next Slide)

        I will turn now in somewhat closing comments to the final
three questions.  It was asked rather directly, "What is your
answer or your position on the following questions:  The future
of coastal zones?"

        Bluntly, I think that the major emphasis for the future
development of our coastal zones should be for public uses, the
preservation of large tracts of land in their natural state so
that enjoyment and personal, physical and mental health of human

beings may be enhanced for the millions of citizens that already
live on these coastal regions and visitors from across the Nation.

        The question is asked:  "What is the best use?"

        I recognize that again as a variable with the person's
predilections and background, but each of us has as much right to
say what is the best use as the next one, and I suggest that the
continuing phenomenal population growth of California, especially
along the coastal and estuarine areas, makes it imperative to look
to the long-range values of these areas.  If the suggested values
discussed above are valid, then the best use for the greatest
number of people is a restriction of commercial development and a
development of use areas for the public.  The plan developed by
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission for
the San Francisco Bay seems, to me, to closely approximate what I
consider the best use of this great estuary.

        The question is raised about management systems.  I think
a regional system should administer the estuarine area of San
Francisco Bay and that State and Federal agencies might cooperate
on the management of our estuarine resources.  For example, the
establishment of a U. S. Wildlife Refuge in South San Francisco
Bay is presently being proposed.  An area of approximately 16,000
acres is suggested by a committee chaired by Mr. Paul McKeehan.
One bill, which is House Bill 2749, submitted by eight local
Congressmen supports the creation of such a Federal refuge.  There
are numerous citizens'groups such as Audubon Societies, Associated
Sportsmen of California, California Wildlife Federation, Sierra
Club and over 240 Bay Area biological scientists who endorse this
proposal.  Local jurisdictions such as Alameda County, Hayward,
and the City of Fremont have also gone on record favoring this
kind of use for our estuarine resources.

        To summarize it up then, looking at it from the ecological
point of view, a major ecologically establishing feature of our
coastal zones in California is the estuarine areas.  They may
serve to enrich our lives by providing a healthy environment not
only for the wild plants and animals which abound there if we
control our pollution, but, for man himself.

        If there are specific questions as to the location and
dimensions and reasons behind the Wildlife Refuge proposal, I
might answer those.  If there are others I am willing to respond.

        Thank you.

        MR. McCARTY:  Mr. Alexander, do you have any questions you
would like to ask?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  The question that comes to my mind possibly,
Doctor, is to how much area to set aside, and how do we go about
procuring or obtaining that amount of land?

        DR. HARVEY:  Well, the reason that 16,000 acres have been
proposed is after a study, including representatives from the
State Department of Fish and Game and in consultation with repre-
sentatives from the Pish and Wildlife Service, the 3,000 acres in
the three parcels are called simply at present, A, B and C.  A is
Reiko Island and a few hundred acres on the edge of Bair Island in
San Nateo County out to the mudflats and deep water across the
Bay which has ecological significance in that with the change in
wind, and particularly, ducks and other shore birds can find refuge
from that wind by moving across to the lee side.  There are about
10,000 acres running from Coyote Slough south to about Mowrey Slough.
We haven't drawn specific boundaries because, of course, there will
be consultations with local jurisdictions and private landowners
in the Pish and Wildlife Service before it is finally serviced.

        There are fairly extensive marshes in the Dumbarton area.
All of these are considered worth preserving.  Then Area C is
about 3,000 acres along Coyote Creek or Coyote Slough.  This in-
cludes such freshwater ponds as well as the marsh and estuarine
situation there.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Are these all in the natural state at the
present time?

        DR. HARVEY:  No, it is about half and half between develop-
ment for salt ponds and in the natural state.  The salt ponds serve as
resting sites for thousands of ducks in season, and so, are in a
sense a near natural situation.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Is all this land in private ownership at the
present time?

        DR. HARVEY:  No.  I think there is some question, as you may
well know, as to who owns which parts of South San Francisco Bay.
I am not clear myself.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I am wondering if you want to expound a
little bit on the management of this as to who should manage this or
whether it should be administered by a local group or by the Federal

        DR. HARVEY:  In this case, it being a United States Wildlife
Refuge, it would fall to the Federal Government for the management
of it.  I would assume that they would listen to advisory comments
from local groups.  I don't know exactly how they run all their
refuges.  I wanted to ask a question — what you meant in this
announcement as to what system of management — when I think of

wildlife areas, I think of management of them for the variety of
species present.  I don't know whether you meant management in the
political sense as to who —

        MR. McCARTY:  Yes, this particular point we are most inter-
ested in getting expressions and opinions on.  The management we
are referring to there was primarily of the political nature.  We
are particularly interested in getting some feedback on what local
people think about the relationships of the local interests, state
interests. Federal interests in the management of estuaries, not
only as wildlife refuges, but as ports, land fill, air systems.

        I realize that this program is being sponsored largely by
legislation in the Federal Water Pollution Control land.  However,
we are interested for this particular case in much broader aspects
than simply pollution.

        DR. HARVEY:  Well, then, as I think I briefly suggested in
the written material that I have handed to you that a regional
agency — some sort of regional agency would be and I would think
should handle it because, again, I am biased from looking at it
as an ecologist in that they all are interrelated.  The eco-
system here emphasizes San Francisco Bay, the watershed., air-
shed, if you want to call it that.  The Bay, itself, comes close
to being a unit which is most interacting, but there are cases to
add, as I think everyone realizes, that the whole surface of the
earth is one giant  ecosystem  which we will have difficulty
managing.  But, as far as at this point in time, I think at least
we can support and stand up and be counted for some regional

        MR. McCARTY:  So, your general viewpoint would be that
perhaps local, state and Federal agencies may be involved in
various phases of this?

        DR. HARVEY:  Right.

        MR. McCARTY:  You were not here earlier, but one of the
things we have been particularly seeking is some expression of
the view of various people so that we can convey this to the
Congress with the idea that eventually some sort of a national
program for the management of the nation's estuaries can be
developed.  I am certain it will be a combination of federal.
State and local, and again, I am very interested in getting
expressions from the public on how this might be accomplished.

        Thank you, Dr. Harvey, for a very graphic and illustrative

        Our next speaker this afternoon is Dr. Joel Gustafson

from San Francisco State College.  Dr. Gustafson.

        DR. JOEL F. GUSTAFSON:  My name is Joel F. Gustafson and
my occupation is that of a Professor of Ecology and Systematics
at San Francisco State College.  I also serve as the Associate
Dean, School of Natural Sciences.  My statements here today refer
to my activities at the College, but I do not officially represent
the College.  I am also the owner of a consulting business titled
"Resources and Ecology Projects".

        I would like to present three items to you as exhibits
and ask you to consider them for the values they present.  The
first exhibit that I have in my statement which I am giving to
you orally is an action taken by the Pacific Coast Entomological
Society in 1967.  This Society established a Salt Marsh Habitat
Committee of which I am Chairman.  The Society has encouraged the
submission of notes and observations regarding salt marsh insects
and other terrestrial invertebrates to the editor of its journal —
The Pan Pacific Entomologist.  The purpose of this action was to
develop information which is so sadly lacking.

        It is usually the disposition of a conservationist to
resort to generalizations and generalities and aesthetic pleas,
and the great failure in his pleas is that he lacks substantive
fact, particularly local substantive fact to support his state-
ments, his opinions.  So, this is an action that I think is
encouraging.  We took this action and have encouraged some 100
other societies throughout the country to take similar actions
trying to build up a fund of organisms that live in the salt marsh
community so we will know what roles they play, why they are
important, and you bear in mind, of course, as biologists, we are
already converted.  We know they are important, but we don't know
why they are important or how much.

        There are two graduate students now doing work in the
salt marshes in the Bay Area, one in the Dumbarton part of the
Bay Area — part of the refuge down there.  His work to date shows
an extraordinary plant life that you find in the salt marsh.  The
first type which the previous speaker illustrated was cordgrass.
Cordgrass has many times the bulk and variety of insects associated
with them, with that particular plant.  It is the one plant in the
salt marsh community which is almost completely utilized by most
bacterial composition, and the products go into the foods which
are used by a host of burrowing and filtering animals.  Unfor-
tunately, most of our salt marsh communities have been reduced by
filling from the back end and by diking from the front end, and
consequently, cordgrass is the one in the shortest supply and it is
the richest one, the most important, if we are concerned with food
utilization, annual production of carbohydrate.  It is the one that
is most sadly lacking.

        Most of our marshes are filled with pickleweed,  an inter-
esting plant, and it has certain values of loafing grounds,  hiding
grounds, retreats, but very limited incorporation into other food
cycles.  Most of the tissue goes into a hard woody stem which does
not decay quickly.  The roots do not decay, and so when we are
concerned with the ecological productivity of the salt marsh, the
first plant that I mentioned, cordgrass, is far and away the most
important plant, and unfortunately, it now is the least common
plant in our salt marsh community.

        Mr. Robert Lane is the graduate student at San Francisco
State College investigating that marsh.

        Mr. Guy Cameron from the University of California at Davis
is investigating in a very similar study another marsh over near
Petaluma Slough off of the Black Point cut-off highway.  The marsh
is almost completely different, and here it is a few tens of miles
away — the same plants, but completely different ecology.  I want
to emphasize the fact that here we have going on two studies at
the same time in what is ostensibly the same kind of community
with completely different aspects to them.

        The thought that first came to my mind was that they were
getting experts to identify the organisms and the organisms weren't
identified the same way by the experts.  Just by chance, nearly all
of the specialists who have been very gracious in the donation of
their time — the specialists from the East Coast to the West
Coast in most cases are the same people.  So, the identifications
I think are not only accurate, but they are by the same person in
each case whether we were considering one small group of insects
or another small group of insects.

        The Pacific Coast Entomological Society has developed a
very large bibliography of the invertebrate animals associated in
the salt marsh,  one of the stumbling points for anyone when you
get interested in an interesting study is the laborious time-
consuming and frequently not very productive literature search you
go through.  We have done a great deal of this.  Duplicate records
have been done.  An abbreviated bibliography has been published.
Volume 44, No. 4, 1968, and we will mimeograph the complete
bibliography of salt marsh insects of the world and distribute
these also to co-workers.  We feel that the availability of the
bibliography, itself, will stimulate work in the field.

                            The second exhibit is one being done
for the Bolinas Harbor District of Marin County and the County of
Marin, and co-sponsored by the Audubon Canyon Ranch and the Marin
Conservation League.  It has involved about 14 graduate students,
about 20 adults who have contributed many days — full days of
time, some 20 students at the Bolinas-Marin Laboratories of the
College of Marin in Marin County, and we are developing the kind
of data that ecologists and conservationists really need in order
to defend, if you will, the values of a particular area.

        If I may call your attention to some particular pages
here that summarize the data, Pages 9 to 12 present the data
based upon 411 polls taken at 31 different stations throughout
the entire Bolinas Lagoon of Marin County.  Some 90 organisms
have been identified to species by specialists at the California
Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, and we are plotting the
frequency of these 90 organisms — the frequency of occurrence
at the 31 stations — and we are now able to draw some tentative

        These conclusions are ones that any ecologist would
assume a priori, but it is nicer to have the data to prove it.  We
are now able to show natural grouping of different kinds of worms
and molluscs, and the natural relationship of mud to sand that is
all mud, then muddy sand, then sandy mud, then sand and gravelly
sand.  You get distinct different kinds of population in these
different habitat areas — these different conditions.

        We are able to show the significant role that the amount
of plant fragment material plays throughout the Lagoon, and within
these different kinds of bottom conditions, and there is also a
correlation, as any ecologist would have guessed, between the
pollution of the water and the speed of the tidal flow of the
water over these shallow flats.  Again, exactly what you would
expect, but for this particular Lagoon, we now have the data.

        This Lagoon will serve as an example of other lagoons in
which similar kinds of evidence, I am sure, will also apply, but
my intention today is to try to show the addition of information
that we are getting which illustrates the typical aesthetic,
recreational, wildlife, scientific values, we can actually show
the beginnings here of the food cycles involved and why each of
these areas is important biologically to the wildlife population,
not only of the Lagoon, but to the offshore fisheries as well.

        The map on Page 11, gentlemen, shows the Lagoon,  and if
you will look at that, Stinson Beach is on the right side of this
map and directly beneath the end of this lagoon, almost directly
beneath it, is a very large drainage channel which drains the
bulk of the tidal waters out of this lagoon.  It was at the point
where this big channel diverged and went in two directions that a
year-long study of fish was conducted, three seines made each
month, and the species are reported for you on Pages 22 to 28.
If you were a fish and game specialist, you might be more im-
pressed with this species list.

        Most of the species, 26 species in all, represent a collec-
tion of 995 specimens over monthly collections for a full calendar
year.  We see a live variety of fish, most of which you don't
catch.  These are rough fish, but they are eaten by the game fish
and the food fish offshore.  They come into the lagoon, some of
them, to spawn, some of them to drop their eggs which wash out and
go through larval stages offshore.  Many of these are larval fish
which use this as a nursery ground and then go on out to be eaten
if they haven't been eaten before they go out.

        The interesting thing is of the 26 species, we were able
to show that 10 of these species had massive populations in the
lagoon at, say, a two to a three-month period and then they were

        Quickly running down that list at the bottom of Page 24,
gentlemen, you will see that the lagoon is important every month
of the year.  We cannot allow pollution during the summer hoping
that it won't disturb things because most things do their spawning
in winter, because this is not true.

        About a thousand feet to the south at the same time,
another student — I call myself a student, too — was doing a
year-long study of very small larval fish associated with a very
large tide flat of many tens of acres, heavily invested with a
green algae called sea lettuce.  We were wondering whether or not
the sea lettuce which looks like big sheets of boiled lettuce
would serve as a natural entrapment for larval fish, and indeed
it was, and the list is presented there on Page 25.

        One of the interesting things is that he got Pacific
herring at this station in terms of hundreds, and by that, I mean
300 to 700 in one seine.  A thousand feet away approximately, I
didn't get one for the entire year.  This indicates the value and
the distinctness of channels versus flats.

        If I had based my interpretation on my data, which I
thought was pretty good, I would have missed the Pacific herring
which was there in terms of thousands.  We could have got them by

the ton.  It was there as a very tiny fish, and as soon as it got
up to pretty good size, it left the lagoon, and you didn't see it
again until next year.

        That student was Mr. Ken Adams.

        At the same time, another student was investigating a very
small creek that runs year round dumping into the north end of the
lagoon, and I would call your attention to Page 26, and you will
see again that we have months of importance.  Very briefly, some
of the fish were rare, some uncommon, some common in January to
May.  Another group was common in May to August; another May to
December; another January to April.  Again, the point that I want
to emphasize is that if you add these months together, we are into
a full year again.

        We investigated also the larger organisms that were in
the mudflats and sandy sand flats.  A previous reference was made
to the number of hundreds of thousands of hours engaged in digging
clams.  We dug quite a few hundred, too.  They were aged, and to
our surprise, we found that nearly all of the gaper clams which
are a very much sought-after clam and the Washington clam — nearly
all of these clams were between the ages of 10 and 12 years of age.
For the Washington clam, out of almost 200 clams, it was — 144,
pardon me — we had only 10 clams that were less than 8 years of

        Now, what this means is that for some reason we don't
know the age classes and the intervening years have been remark-
ably unsuccessful, and all the clam digging is being based upon a
very successful period some 10 to 12 years ago, and the same
thing holds true for the gaper clam.

        Now, clam digging is not only good recreation; it is a
source of food for many families, and this is a problem now under
investigation by two more students.  We have no idea — and we
have raised a bunch of guesses so far — we have no idea why the
clams are successful for a few years and then not successful for
so many other years.  This is the kind of thing I think is
important data to know, and unless you get out and look for it,
you will never know it.

        The clams — both the gaper and the Washington — are
very sensitive to pollution.  They are remarkable concentrators
of sewage pollution.  They are also remarkable concentrators of
copper and zinc and lead.  We have a considerable pollution
problem in Bolinas Lagoon, and for those of you who eat clams, by
all means grind them up and cook them in chowder.  Don't make the
patties — not of those clams; they're too rich.

        Under the direction of Professor Richard Doutt who is a
Director for the Biological Control Laboratories at the University
of California, Berkeley, a group of seven members of the Audubon
Society and of the Canyon Ranch organization did a series of bird
censuses for us.  The particular months during which those particu-
lar birds are available or present in the lagoon is shown on Pages
29 to 33.  An exhaustive study of the research produced only a
half dozen references to the food value of these birds, and I am
concerned about the lack of data in all of these areas.  I am
concerned that we are not able to say for most of these birds what
they eat and where those organisms are produced and where they
occur.  This is a significant area of lack of information which we
absolutely need if we are to protect those areas by whatever means,
but are critically important to the biology of the inland as well
as the outer shore waters.

        There are quite a bit of other data in there that I won't
take the time to give you, gentlemen, but what I am trying to
emphasize is that mostly what we lack is data.  We have got lots
of opinions; we have got lots of emotions, and I have tried to
give you some.

        The last exhibit is a statement by Professor James P.
Mackey, which the secretary has, and I would just summarize in a
few sentences.  He has conducted for three years a study of the
fishes of Corte Madera Creek that runs year round and dumps out
in the Bay near San Quentin.

        He has over 20 species of fish, including such important
ones as striped bass, rainbow, topsmelt, and quite a number of
other smelt relatives which are largely eaten by other fish.  When
you add these all together, they are present also at varying
months, including summer.

        So, I would emphasize that your attention be drawn toward
even little  rivulets  of fresh water coming into an estuary, that
we concern ourselves not only with the presence of a salt marsh,
but also with the quality of that salt marsh, the variety and
combinations of the plant variety in it.  We must concern ourselves
with the circulation of water to and from that area.  A salt marsh
at the back end of a dirty bathtub is still going to be a polluted

        I think I have taken enough time.  Thank you.  I would be
happy to answer any questions you might have.

                              (Letter dated November 20, 1968 from
                              Professor Gustafson submitting notice
                              for publication THE SALT MARSH HABITAT
                              entered in the record as Exhibit No. 1
                              to presentation by Professor Gustafson)

                               (Ecological Study Bolinas Lagoon
                               entered in the record as Exhibit No.2
                               to presentation by Prof. Gustafson)

                               (Letter dated February 18, 1969 from
                               Professor James p. Mackey entered in
                               the record as Exhibit No. 3 to pres-
                               entation by Prof. Gustafson)

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Dr. Gustafson.  A point or two for
clarification for the record, perhaps,  in your second exhibit,
the Ecological Study, could you very briefly give us a picture of
what you consider to be the pollution situation in Bolinas Bay?
You have touched on the fact that clams — that we ought to be
suspicious of the clams there.

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, I had two studies done in different
laboratories because I wanted to be sure the data was as bad as
it looked, and the most probable number which is an indication of
the total gross bacteria pollution from the Stinson Beach drain-
age, which theoretically is good because it is all septic tanks,
was 23,000 individuals per milliliter of water.  The little town
of Bolinas dumps some of its raw sewage right at the mouth, coming
into the lagoon, and that is where I thought the major source was.

        They only contributed 6200, and I took it right above the
outfall.  I knew I was there by the material nearby — the E.coli —
this is a material that is a complete assurance that what you are
dealing with is human sewage and not sewage from birds and cows
and so forth, and the figures were extremely high for both the
Stinson Beach drainage and the Bolinas areas.  They were low in
other areas where the tides were covered by birds and bird

        The trouble is if you have E.coli in the water, all you
need is a typhoid carrier loose in either drainage, somebody with
hepatitis or viral infections of the liver other than hepatitis
or dysentery — this is why I recommended to you gentlemen that
you cook the clams thoroughly.  It is all right as long as you
cook them.  From a public health standpoint, I'd sure be worried.

        MR. McCARTY:  I was primarily after, as I say, the con-
tributing population of the Bolinas Bay area and its drainage area,
for example, and information on this.

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  No, that's coming up in the next report.
You mean the sources of pollution besides sewage?

        MR. McCARTY:  A general idea of where the source of the
pollution might be — where the pollution might be coming from.
Obviously, there are people there.

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  Well, we have also in summer months maybe
600,000 people that come to Stinson Beach State Park.

        MR. McCARTY:  This is total through the summer?

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  Through the summer, yes.  The populations,
themselves, in the two towns are quite small.  There is practically
no agricultural pollution in terms of pesticides, no oil.  We are
investigating three drainages for copper.  There were some ancient
copper mines there, and copper is about the last metallic iron you
want in any kind of an aquatic situation.  It is very bad.

        MR. McCARTY:  One last question:  In your studies, have you
noticed any direct relationships between this pollution and the
various organisms that you have studied in terms of numbers and
species and this sort of thing?

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  Do you know Bolinas Lagoon physically?  If
you look on the map on Page 7, way up toward the left end is the
road to Point Reys.  The number of organisms, the kinds of organ-
isms there are completely different with just a couple of simi-
larities as the organisms that you find right at the base of the
bluff of the town of Stinson Beach, which is extraordinarily rich.
It is just sort of a very tag-end, very long, narrow finger-like
extension of the lagoon with very poor water circulation.

        The life there is only a fraction in terms of bulk and just
a few species because it is overrich, and then, as you get away
from the richness, you get into areas which are properly fertilized,
and this is where you find the great abundance, and these are in
areas of a mixture of sand and mud, but they also — that just
may be a coincidence because they are also in areas of better water
and circulation and flushing.

        MR. McCARTYs  Thank you.

        Do you have any questions, Mr. Alexander?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I think you asked two or three of the
questions that I had in mind, but I was wondering primarily about
the pollution as to whether this ecological study, whether your
properties or whether your plant life and everything, as well as
the marine life, would be different if you didn't have any pollu-
tion going in there whatsoever?  I mean, would you have completely
different colonies, so to speak, in there or would it be the same?

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  No, I am quite confident that the — I have
to answer it this way — it is a little involved:  The organisms
that you find in these estuaries and lagoons concentrate materials,
concentrate minerals.  They concentrate such things as phosphates

and nitrates, so what you have is a continuous filtering of this
material by flushing water so that there is a natural kind of
high fertility of the water if it is shallow.  So, we wouldn't
need any extra pollution to enrich the water.  Biologically, it
could enrich itself due to the concentrating organisms that are
there, and in these shallow waters, you have tremendous numbers
of diatoms and several species of algae, green algae particularly,
which are just tremendous producers of food.

        Some of these algae leak about 10 percent of their sugar
production into the water per day, and some of the worms that sit
in the mud can just absorb through their body wall without even
feeding about 20 percent of their body physiology needs.

        So, it is rich, but it is too rich now, so without the
pollution, we would get back those kinds of organisms which are
more active participators in being eaten, and then get into the
food cycle by the organisms which we might say are more desirable,
the fish and the bird, rather than rich stinking mud.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Then it would improve the wildlife habitat?

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  Oh, immeasurably — very much so.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  What is the primary pollution then in that
particular area at the present time?

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  The sewage pollution from the two small

        MR. ALEXANDER:  From the two small towns?

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  Yes.  The difficulty is we are dealing with
a small lagoon, some 600 surface acres, with only one small open-
ing, so the tidal flow is delayed as well as restricted.  If you
envision the lagoon as sort of two "Vs" put together with one V
being the opening, the polluted waters go up to the extreme ends,
and by the circulation being very low, the debris, the sediment,
the silt — all of these things trap — by adding to the outside,
physically binding to the outside — they trap the pollution to
the soil particles which become part of the sediment.  So, you have
a natural removal, a scrubbing, a continuous addition of pollution
right in the areas which already are physically the poorest because
of the circulation pattern, and that's why I found so few organisms

        It is like having a dog put all of the nitrogen in one
spot on your lawn, whereas taking a spreader, you get a nice growth.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you. Dr. Gustafson.

        I might say I have been quite impressed with your report
on the Ecology of Bolinas Lagoon, and one particular statement
caught my eye here.  I thought I would mention it to the group
before we pass on to the next speaker.  It says simply,  "Harbor
seals snore - loudly1"

        DR. GUSTAFSON:  I knew that would be quoted.

        MR. McCARTY:  It is pretty hard to miss that one.

        Our next speaker this afternoon is Dr. Gene Willeke,  repre-
senting Stanford University.

        DR. GENE E. WILLEKE:  Mr. Alexander, Mr. McCarty:  My name
is Gene Willeke and I am Acting Professor of Civil Engineering at
Stanford University.

        I would like to present information this afternoon on the
social values of San Franciso Bay and how pollution of Bay water
has affected the recreational activities of Bay Area residents.

        MR. McCARTY:  Excuse me a minute.  Do you have a copy of
your statement available?

        DR. WILLEKE:  I don't yet, but I can get one.  I would
like to do that.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you.

        DR. WILLEKE:  I would also like to make a few recommen-
dations based on this information collected about the social
effects of pollution on recreational activities.

        Under a research grant from the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, I conducted a sample survey in 1967 among
adults living in the nine Bay Area counties.  This research was
done for my doctoral dissertation.  To the best of my knowledge,
only one other survey of this general type has been conducted, on
Lake Onandaga, near Syracuse, New York.  My primary intent was to
determine what effect Bay pollution had on the recreational
activities of Bay Area adults.

        I found that Bay pollution does, indeed, affect recre-
ational activities.  About 25 percent of Bay Area adults do not
use the Bay for recreational activities because they think it is
polluted.  More precisely, they think the Bay is polluted or dirty
or smelly or oily or has floating debris — something of this type,

        On an individual activity basis, the largest effect is on

potential swimmers.  Twenty percent of the population say they
would like to swim in the Bay but do not because they think it is
polluted.  This is an important finding in view of the fact that
there is a prevalent notion that the Bay is too cold for swimmers.
It is probably too cold for me, but the fact is that pollution,
rather than temperature, is a major factor preventing about 800,000
people from swimming in San Francisco Bay, which would be 20 per-
cent of the Bay Area adults.

        Water skiing is the next activity next most affected.  Over
5 percent of the population do not water ski on the Bay because
they think it is polluted.  This is twice as many people as have
ever water skied on the Bay and almost as many as the persons who
went water skiing anywhere in 1967.

        Boating and fishing are much less affected, in the sense
that people cease to engage in these activities because of Bay
pollution.  In each case, only about two percent of the population
avoid the Bay because of pollution.

        The social effects of Bay pollution go beyond effects on
recreational activities.  Half of the population, 50 percent, con-
siders Bay pollution the most unappealing aspect of the Bay.

        More than one-fourth of the people in the Bay Area are
unwilling to eat fish caught in the Bay because of possible ill
effects.  About one-fourth believe contact with Bay water could
be harmful to a person.

        The supposed effects of Bay pollution and the supposed
condition of Bay water are due to observable effects such as I
mentioned before, such as floating material, turbidity, foam,
and odor, and especially odor in our. part of the Bay — South Bay —
and to the information that people have picked up from others.
Much of this information is not well supported.  For example, the
foam at the Dumbarton Bridge looks like detergent foam and, if it
were, this would indicate poor sewage treatment.  It is, rather,
salt water foam, and, therefore, we are having an opinion formed
on the basis of observation which is in actuality a faulty obser-
vation.  The people don't know this, and there is really no one to
tell them about this at the present time.

        The basis for opinions and attitudes leads to some con-
clusions about Bay pollution control programs.  In addition to
improving the chemical quality of the water, especially surface
material, nutrients and, in some places, dissolved oxygen, there
needs to be a solid public information program to tell the facts
about the Bay in simple, laymen's language.  A brochure with a
map that tells and shows where the clean and dirty places are, as
well as points of recreational access, would be one approach.

There needs to be a change of attitude about the relative effects
of temperature and pollution on Bay swimming.

        I would like to suggest also that there needs to be an
agency, preferable State or local, with the authority,  manpower,
equipment, and budget to clean up beaches and water surface on a
continuing basis.  Much of the material that incites the imagina-
tion of persons about pollution does not come from identifiable
sources, although certainly some does.  But, there is a certain
amount of diffuse kind of material that at the present time is
really no one's responsibility in the sense that they have a budget.
people and the authority to go out and do these kinds of things.

        Returning to public information for a moment, I think it
is important to note that one of the conclusions of this survey
was that about one-third of the people know nothing about Bay
pollution or else consider it not polluted at all.  This is the
margin of a bond issue election that requires a two-thirds
majority for approval.

        I would like to make just one more point.  We in the
pollution control field have tended to emphasize bacteria reduc-
tion.  I think this is very much in order.  Shellfish that were men-
tioned by the preceding speaker would be an example of this, but
for recreational uses, there has never been a demonstrated
relationship between bacteria counts and harm caused to users.
In view of the cost of chlorinating sewage treatment plant efflu-
ent, it would seem that bacterial reduction to benefit recreation
should be de-emphasized and the money used for other, more urgent
waste treatment problems, if there are no other reasons for
bacteria reduction.

        To summarize, the adverse social effects of Bay pollution
are substantial.  The most important form of pollution is that
which produces observable phenomena that can be seen or smelled.
Pollution control efforts should concentrate on these effects, de-
emphasizing bacteria reduction.  In addition, the people need to
be told about the Bay, honestly, and in clear, laymen's language.
Support for pollution control comes from people.  To get it, they
must know the facts.  They don't appear to know them now.

        I would be happy to answer any questions.  I will be pro-
viding a written summary of this to you.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you.  I don't believe you were here
this morning, but the deadline for receiving those statements is
March 14.

        DR. WILLEKE:  Thank you.

        MR. McCARTY:  Did you have any questions,  Bill?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Yes.  When did you make your study?

        DR. WILLEKE:  This was done in September-October,  1967.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  In 1967?

        DR. WILLEKE:  That is correct.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  You are familiar with the Delta-Bay study?

        DR. WILLEKE:  I have not seen it.  I know it is under way,
but I have not seen a copy of the report.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  We will be holding hearings on it before
too long as far as our State Resources Control Board is concerned,
and it is nearing completion, and we will send it to the Legis-
lature .

        DR. WILLEKE:  I have sent a copy of the study to the State.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  They have copies of your study?

        DR. WILLEKE:  I have talked with them on the telephone.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Very fine.  It is a good report.

        MR. McCARTY:  One further question:  Your findings apply
primarily to San Francisco Bay — at least your study applies to
San Francisco Bay?

        DR. WILLEKE:  It applies entirely to San Francisco Bay —
San Francisco, San Pablo.

        MR. McCARTY:  Would you care to hazard any guesses as to
how your conclusions might apply to other estuaries around the

        DR. WILLEKE:  I think that they would be very similar.  It
is something that would be very easy to check, but I think we would
find they would be very similar.  Concentrating the attitudes are
very much formed by what can be seen and smelled and by the infor-
mation picked up by other people and not necessarily very reliable
sources.  The lines of communication between the people who are
knowledgeable, recently the Federal, State and local agencies, as
a whole, have not been too good for a number of very good and
sufficient reasons.  This forces many people — well, perhaps it
doesn't force them — but at any rate, the person who would move
into the Bay Area, for example, would pick up this first information

from his neighbor, but then this opinion formed about a. very small
portion of the Bay tends, then, to apply to the whole Bay.

        If one drives across Dumbarton Bridge one sees the  whole
Bay as being the same as that under Dumbarton Bridge until  something
different is shown.  So, I think we would tend to find similarities
throughout the country.

        MR. McCARTY:  I think your study is unique in this  respect,
the analysis of social values related to water pollution.  Do you
know of any other studies of this type around the country that have
been made that directly relate to the pollution problem?

        DR. WILLEKE:  Only the one at Syracuse, New York, on
Onandaga Lake, which was reported in the October issue of Water
Resources Research.  It was not as extensive as this, and,  of course,
does not involve estuaries.  It is on salt water lakes.

        Another survey of this type has been considered for
Appalachia, but I don't believe it is under way yet, and maybe it
has not been funded.

        It is a rather inexpensive way to acquire this kind of
information, though, and with the groundwork we have here on
questionnaire development, this could be supplied at fairly low
cost, and the information could be acquired very rapidly.  A year
or two would suffice for much of the country.

        MR. McCARTY:  Was it low cost through the approach you

        DR. WILLEKE:  Yes, even if we take that component out, the
large component of the cost is the survey, itself, and that is sub-
stantially constant wherever you would do the survey.  The only
additional parts are things like salaries which, for graduate
students, are very low.  Nevertheless, much of the work has been
done in deciding what kind of analyses are required in new future
studies.  That effort would be less expensive.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  What was your sampling program?

        DR. WILLEKE:  The sampling program here was the random
type cross section sample of households in the nine Bay Area Counties
It was done by a field research corporation here in San Francisco
who did do the California poll, and the techniques of sampling were
identical to those used  for the California poll.  The key address
was selected from the telephone directory and additional inter-
views were conducted based on that key address.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you. Dr. Willeke.

        Do we have anyone else in the audience wishing to make a
statement at this time?

        If not, the meeting will be recessed until seven o'clock
this evening.


        ...The Hearing was reconvened at 7:20 p.m. ...

        MR. McCARTY:  Gentlemen, I believe we are ready to recon-
vene our meeting this evening.  I recognize quite a few faces from
earlier in the day.  However, I might just make a few brief remarks
for those who were not here earlier to indicate our procedures.

        Very briefly, we are transcribing this — these statements.
They will be a part of the record, and we would appreciate any
illustrations that you may have or any slides you may have.  Be
sure to remember that in the transcript these will appear in black
and white, so if you are trying to point out certain things or you
are making statements such as "over there" or "this point in red,"
try to remember that it will be a part of the transcript, and make
your statements such that they will be intelligible read from the

        I should also point out that we are here to receive state-
ments and receive ideas and receive views and thoughts of interest
to the people, private citizens, conservation groups and the like,
on matters related to the nation's estuaries.  We would like to
receive all viewpoints that we can possibly receive.  We do not
intend to make this meeting a debating place or a forum for debate.
We are primarily interested in receiving your views, your thoughts,
so we can collate these thoughts and transmit them to the United
States Congress for their consideration in developing a national
program for the control and management of our nation's estuaries.

        One additional statement I should like to make, for those
of you who feel you do not have time to prepare a statement but
would like to have something in the record, you have until March 14
to submit a statement to us in writing.  We would be more than
happy to include it in the transcript.  If any of you would like
to proceed in that manner, you can contact Mr. Irving Terzich who
is in the rear of the room at the registration table, and he will
be happy to supply you with the necessary information to get your
statement into the record.

        With that brief introduction, we will call on our next
speaker for this evening. Dr. Howard L. Cogswell from the
California State College in Hayward.  Dr. Cogswell.

        DR. HOWARD L. COGSWELL:  Since I did not know what the time
schedule was — I did not receive the official announcement,  although
I had been contacted last week — I did not receive the official
announcement until today.  I am somewhat unprepared.

        I am, first. Associate Professor of Science at California
State College, Hayward.  I work primarily in ornithology and
ecology.  I have been doing research on and off, but intensively
the last four or five years on the bird populations of San Francisco
Bay shores, particularly as related to the tide flat regions, and
I will try not to overlap what perhaps has been covered here already--
the salt marshes, the Bay as a whole, and things of this sort—but
with regard to the tide flat area, particularly in the South Bay,
South Oakland, San Francisco Bay Bridge.

        At two different times, I have attempted to come up with
some quantitative figures, which, in searching the scientific
literature, I find lacking with regard to the bird populations that
a given acreage of tide flat will support.

        As almost every bird watcher who goes out with an alert
mind will tell you, the tide flats are the prime food support for
the large numbers of birds that are found there.  This does not
apply to all birds in the Bay, but it does apply to the large
group known as shore groups of which there are 15 to 20 species
frequenting the Bay, some of them in numbers up to a quarter
million or more in the South Bay at the migration periods.

        It also applies to a large number of diving ducks which are
probably the ones which have been covered in your hearings by those
engaged in studies of game bird.  The diving ducks are also sup-
ported by the shallow waters below the tide level, but still below
six feet in depth.

        I want to present material here just on the populations of
the tide flat area because this seems to be ecologically the largest
gap in the knowledge.

        Fish and game, for example, researchers operating aboard
a boat with a power dredge and a winch to haul it up can't get into
the tide flat.  So, it's never been studied from that regard.  So,
it takes somebody on shore going out in a flat-bottom boat or some-
body on shore to do the sampling.  We are just really getting under
way for quantitative samples other than for the bird samples alone.

        First, midwinter populations are medium in the Bay, and yet,
it is in the midwinter that I have happened to have the time in
four or five years in order to engage in census work, and on the
south shore of Alameda and San Leandro Bay back in 1962-63 when
there was more mudflat there than there is now, we came up with a

total population figure for shprebirds alone of 15 to 20 species
of birds, including feeders.  We came up with a figure that
averaged 18 birds of that group per acre of tide flat.  This was
in the late December early January period.

        They did this by counting the birds at their high tide
waiting grounds.  Using a different method since I went to
California State College at Hayward in 1964, we have been concen-
trating on a particular measured survey, 100-acre patch of tide
flat, which we chose there north of the San Mateo Bridge and chose
because it was accessible to us and chose it as we looked at its
average.  That is, it was neither maximum in bird population nor
was it minimum, and it was readily accessible.

        The tide flat is about 2500 feet wide at the zero tide
line, and in five winters of censusing, chiefly in January and
early February repeatedly over that hundred acre plot which we
are able to do comfortably from a dike with a telescope, we have
come up with a figure of 14 to 16 1/2 or 17 birds per acre, which,
if you measure it at the time the tide flat is exposed, that
number of shorebirds, averaging in the diving ducks and so on that
come in at the high tide, you get a much higher figure or lower
figure depending on how you average the time-related ba-se.

        These shorebirds — roughly 16 shorebirds per acre — are
being supported food-wise upon that area.  The important feature
is that this is the food source, and this is an additional reason,
I feel, for supporting conservation measures which would maintain
that intertidal region with its acreage that alone is not suffi-
cient to support this population of birds.

        Adjacent areas for waiting out the high tide period are
highly critical because none of them can stay in the water during
the high tide period.  Shorebirds have to go somewhere on land,
and it has to be within easy flying range.  Salt marshes originally

        Why do I stress the shorebirds?  Because they are considered
non-game.  They used to be game birds, but they cannot support
intensive hunting pressure.  I support them because they are inter-
esting.  There is a variety of species.  It is a real spectacular
sight to be out there on the shore of the Bay and see flocks of
80,000 birds pass over at the peak of the migration season.  You
can do that at some of the better spots.

        Direct economic effects upon man — I have no comment about
them.  I do not see there is a dollar and cent value I can place
on it except from the viewpoint of education for better under-
standing of a complex environment with an interchange of land and
marine resources being used.  The educational value I think is

        TO relate this to the prime topic of your hearing,  that of
pollution, I said that this area we were studying at Hayward was
not the peak population.  The peak population of shorebirds along
that seven-mile stretch I have had access to there,  on and off,
is at the Oraloma sewage outlet.  Now, they are rebuilding the
plant under instructions from the Water Quality Control Board.

        The number of feeding shorebirds within that plant out-
numbers those further down the Bay where I have censused.  Now,
it is true that other sewage outlets had almost no shorebirds
because there was not but anaerobic bacteria there.

        Something in between the pollution level which kills all
life in the Bay and the nice, clean, white, sandy beach which
again has no shorebirds because there is not much there to eat
is the pickleweed life population for both this group and some of
the diving ducks.  The famed canvasback feeds right in the same

        I believe that is about what I wanted to say, sir.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  You need some enrichment then?

        DR. COGSWELL:  You need some organic enrichment.  Unless
we find some other way to dispose of our wastes, I see certain
areas of the Bay maybe that wildlife education could be the use
and still maintain the disposal aspect.  Currently,  if I may take
a moment more, I am on a research aspect, but it is another whole
aspect of pollution.  I am studying solid waste disposal and bird
hazard to aircraft.  I guess this is a form of air pollution.  I
don't know.

        Thank you.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Dr. Cogswell.

        I would like to call our next speaker who represents the
San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra club, Mr. Edwin B. Royce.

        MR. EDWIN B. ROYCE:  May I first thank you for the oppor-
tunity to present material here.  The San Francisco Bay Chapter of
the Sierra Club has for some time now been interested in water
quality problems.  It has had an active subcommittee on water
quality problems.  The chairman of that is Peter Zars who will talk
a little bit later tonight.  We certainly appreciate the opportunity
to talk on this subject and also the interest in water quality and
estuarine systems which is represented by the fact that we are
having this hearing at all.

        I would like to talk in particular about a study that the
Chapter's Water Quality Subcommittee undertook last year.  It
started I guess about a year ago and led to a preliminary report in
June or July.  This is a study that we did on water quality in the
San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta system.  We
did this or we started out essentially as a matter of self-education.
We wanted to find out what the problems were in this area and then
it identifies some of the problems.  Perhaps we have some idea of
what sorts of solutions we ought to advocate.

        As we got into the Bay Delta problem, of course, we came
across a lot of the problems which have been recognized by many
others who have already studied that system, and let me just run
through a few of the things it would seem to us to be critical
problems.  I will try to do this fairly quickly since this kind of
material, at least in some aspects, has been reported by others.

        The one thing that is unique about our study, I think, is
that we attempted to provide an integration of all the sources of
information we could get — reports from various agencies, State
and Federal, tried to get an overall picture of what the water
quality problem was.  We found most of the reports we got our hands
on almost invariably concentrated on one particular aspect of the
problem.  It did not seem to address the general questions as much
as we would like to.

        What we found out, of course,  is that it is probably
fairly well known that the pollution problem, particularly in the
Delta system, is a result of two kinds of things that are happen-
ing:  One is the fact that as our population grows in that area,
industrialization grows.  There is increased agricultural develop-
ment in that area.  We are seeing an increased inflow of wastes
of all kinds into the waters of the Delta and at the same time,
this is being combined gradually with a reduced outflow of water
to flush this solution out of the area.  So, it is combination of
these two things, and they have to be looked at together, and the
solutions, then, obviously require attacking both sides of this
problem? namely, maintaining flows to flush pollution out of the
Delta area, and this is important not only for the Delta but for
San Francisco, particularly winter flushing flows which seem to be
fairly important in clearing wastes out of the Suisun area and
San Pablo area.  So, we think it is important to maintain these

        At the same time, we have got to take a look at this prob-
lem of increased input of wastes.  Now, the wastes come from many
forms or from many sources.  There are, of course, municipal,
industrial wastes.  Those are sort of straightforward-to-treat
ones.  You realize you have got them there.  Clearly, more work
has to be done along those lines to reduce the inflow of wastes if

we are even going to try to maintain the present water quality that
we have.

        There is also the problem of agricultural waste waters
coming into the Delta.  We at first were worried about the drains.
That is one of the things we thought we ought to find out a little
bit about when we started the study, and we decided that was a
thing that needed to be worried about.  The problem of nitrates in
the drain waters, of course, has been well discussed.  For that
reason alone, it seemed to us essential that the drain should not
discharge into the Delta.

        Since that time, we have heard a great deal about the
developments that have come along in the treatment of nitrates in
drain waters.  We still think that there is a substantial amount
of nitrates left.

        We are also worried about what we call exotic chemicals,
and we include by that the pesticides, as well as other chemicals,
toxic salts, toxic materials that might come through these drain
waters, and we were worried particularly in terms of the preser-
vation of the fish in these waters.  Of course, it has been stated
that the waters that are going to come out of the drains are going
to come out of tile drains, and they are very low in pesticides.
If that is indeed true, perhaps there is not a problem.  We are
not convinced — it did not seem convincing to us that was the
case, and we are still worried about this, and we feel a lot more
attention should be given to this.

        We are also worried about the dissolved solids in the
drain waters.  This is something you cannot do a great deal about.
The studies have again indicated that with reduced flows in the
Delta that the level of dissolved solids would be such that the
drain would not provide any serious problem.  We believe the flow
should be maintained at considerably higher levels.  I will come
back to that in a minute.

        There are the dissolved solids that would be coming through
the drain waters that would, in fact, be detrimental to the Delta
waters.  For these reasons, we think it would be better if these
drains did not go into the Delta.

        I have talked about some of the sources of the pollution
and the results of the flows.  There is also the question of salinity
intrusion into the Delta — the fact that flows have to be retained
in order to prevent that.  A lot of people have discussed the
problem of salinity in terms of the agricultural developments in
the Delta and the industrial uses of waters.  Our primary interest
is in terms of the preservation of the fisheries in the Delta, and
some of these studies that we have seen that are coming from the

Department of Fish and Game seem to indicate, at least the way I
read them, that a major salinity intrusion would have quite dis-
astrous effects on the, for example, striped bass — not so much
on striped bass, but on the shrimp that the bass feed on.

        You might think that the whole population would move up-
stream as you had salinity intrusion and there would be no problem.
The fact is that the channels upstream are very different from
the downstream area which the shrimp live in which is in the
western part of the Delta.  This is not necessarily a good habitat
for them.

        I don't know whether Dr. Tarp is here yet, but I think he
probably has some data that will illustrate this fact a little
bit more graphically because he has data that shows the direct
correlation between salinity intrusion and the population of
striped bass in the Delta.

        These are rather specific things that I have discussed,
and in terms of more general recommendations, we came up with a
few things we thought were important goals that we ought to
strive for.  We feel that water is released — the whole release
of water into the Delta ought to be managed in such a way as to
not only preserve, but enhance, the population of desirable
aquatic life in the Delta.  This we think is a very important goal.

        Further, we think that this management of the water quality
in the Delta should be such as to preserve a water safe and
attractive for water recreation, water contact sports — this kind
of thing.

        We think that flows, thermal gradients, perhaps associated
with thermal discharges should not be modified in such a way that
they would adversely affect the biological system in the Delta,
and we think there should be protection against salinity intrusion
in order to maintain an adequate shore line ecology.  These are
the things we thought were fairly important.

        Let me turn now from the discussion of the Delta and talk
about the Bay.  We can't, of course, divorce these two systems.
They are all part of the same estuarine system.  Our study con-
centrated on problems in the Delta to some extent.  We found those
to be the more challenging problems,  we recognize they are very
serious problems in the Bay as well.

        Based on earlier positions that we have taken in the
Chapter, based on our reviews of some of the discussions that have
been going on in the BCDC, and just listening this morning and this
afternoon to some of the testimony, I jotted down a few ideas that,
as I say, are consistent with the policies the Chapter has taken.

It seemed to me to be a summary of what we are striving for in
water quality in the Bay.

        What we are trying to do to use a phrase is "Save the Bay."
It seems to me there are three important things at least that we
in the Sierra Club are worried about; namely, preservation of the
Bay as such, preservation of the habitat for birds, fish, shore
line ecosystems, if you like, and recreational use.

        As far as preservation of the Bay, itself, is concerned, I
think the best thing I can do — I would like to quote a few sen-
tences out of the BCOC report because it describes why we want to
preserve the Bay as such.  The quote is as follows:

        "San Francisco Bay is an irreplaceable gift to nature
    that man can either abuse and ultimately destroy or improve
    and protect for future generations.  It should be regarded
    as the most valuable natural asset of the entire Bay Region.
    The appearance of the Bay and man's enjoyment of it as a
    scenic resource is valuable to the Bay Area.  The wide sur-
    face of the Bay offers relief from the crowded often chaotic
    urbanized scene and helps to create a sense of psychological

        I cannot think of a better way of describing what we mean
when we talk about the aesthetic reasons for the preservation of
the Bay.  I think these same arguments also go really to the
preservation of any natural area, particularly where it is immedi-
ately adjacent to an urban development, so it does provide this
relief between the urban and the natural development.

        You have heard lots of testimony already today about
preservation of habitats for fish, the necessity of preserving the
salt marshes, the mudflats, the importance of these areas and
oxygenating the waters of the Bay and providing nutrients that in
turn feed the fish and so on, but these are certainly important,
and finally, recreational, because, again, really our interest has
to be centered on people.  We are not talking about preservation
of, for example, wildlife habitats just to preserve a habitat.  It
is because people enjoy seeing birds.  They enjoy catching fish.

        So, really it comes back to people.  This is the whole
reason why we really need to preserve these systems.  It is
centered on people, not on the objects in some inanimate sense or
some inhuman sort of sense, and again, recreation is important.
This is why we think it is important to maintain the habitat for
fish and wildlife and also, again, why we want to preserve the
natural scene so that people can enjoy this.  It is centered on

        This is our real interest, and this seems to me the real
reason to worry about water quality and preservation and water areas
that we have.

        I have rambled too far.  Thank you.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  What is your present assessment as to the
conditions in the Bay, so to speak?  That was the last subject you

        MR. ROYCE:  Yes, the information that we have seen indi-
cates that it is quite variable.  It depends on what part of the
Bay you are talking about.  Certainly, in the Central Bay-San Pablo
Bay Area, we have quite good water.  On the other hand, in South
Bay, at least at certain times of the year, there are waste dis-
charges that produce significant oxygen pollution, for example.
These are probably the two extremes.

        There are, of course, the continual problems of waste dis-
charges from the communities all around the Bay, and I think perhaps
one of the speakers is going to talk about that in a little more
detail tonight.  So, it is variable.  We have very good water
quality in some areas and rather bad water quality in some areas
at some times.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  When you talk about preserving the Bay, you
mean some enhancement from what it is at the present or do you mean
in its present state?

        MR. ROYCE:  I mean a whole collection of things.  In terms
of water quality specifically, you talk about preservation where
we have high water quality, enhancement where there is presently a
degradation of that water quality due to discharge of various
wastes.  That enhancement should be a goal, not merely standing
still and holding what we have.

        I was also — when I talked about saving the Bay, which is
a common phrase that people use, we are also talking about the
whole idea of planning the development of the adjacent Bay lands,
whether or not these lands are going to be filled.  Preservation
of the flats — again, also perhaps in enhancement.  For example,
the BCDC report suggests that if the salt flats should at some
future time not be productive, perhaps these could be purchased
and dikes placed so that this land could go back to the Bay.  So,
this would be an enhancement rather than just preservation.

        Preservation is important, but when we have the opportunity,
we ought to try to do more.  I may have talked around your question—

        MR. ALEXANDER:  No, I think you have answered to a certain

extent, but then I come to the point, where do the funds come from
to get this enhancement and produce the enhancement?

        MR. ROYCE:  This is the critical problem, of course,  and I
think that to some extent they have to come from public funds
because we are talking about — by the way, I am speaking for my-
self now — we don't have any policy as far as the chapter is
concerned — but it seems to me that we do have to spend some public
funds because this is a concern of the public.  People are inter-
ested to hear, for example, this report of Gene Willeke this
afternoon about public concern for water pollution.  You can weigh
that one way or another, but certainly that report indicates that
there is a concern in a sizable segment of the public.  It affects
their recreational activities.

        I think some of this can come from public funds.  I think
in terms of pollution — I think we have to recognize that there
should not be a right to pollute in the sense that because we have
been dumping this stuff there in the past that we can do it for-
ever and ever and ever.  I think that the public does have a right
to clean water and waste dischargers do not have the right to
pollute that water forever and that some of that improvement is
going to have to come from private funds, whatever the people are
who are discharging.  That may be public funds if it is. a
municipality or something.

        I think in terms of direct pollution, there should not be
the right to pollute and, therefore, in cleaning up water quality
ultimately, this has to go back to the discharger.

        Now, there is the problem of maintaining flows, for
example.  If you are going to maintain additional flows, for
example, in the Delta, where is that water going to come from?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  You are talking about, say, enhancement of
water in the Delta?

        MR. ROYCE:  I may be talking about enhancement or I may be
simply talking about maintaining our present flows in the face of
increased diversions.  It may be in that case even a holding
operation is going to require additional sources for the water to
be allocated for water quality.

        It seems to me that perhaps this should be charged to the
public in some way because it is a public benefit.  For example,
I have seen a figure that said there are three and a half million
recreational days a year in the Delta.  I think you count a fisher-
man who comes out and wants to fish — that's one unit.  I do not
really know how you make those people pay for water quality.

        Again, this is speaking for myself — this is not an official

statement:  I have often thought that in terms of the fishermen,
you can do the same thing we do with trout stamps.  If you are
going to fish in the Delta, you have to pay an extra buck for the
fish license — just as, for example, we do not ask the users of a
park to pay every time they go into a public park.  It is a public
facility that has been paid for by public funds.  I think this
should be the same kind of thing.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  It is a tremendous problem, and you have
done an excellent job in presenting your picture.  I appreciate
that, and I also appreciate the testimony that the Sierra Club has
given at other hearings and the work you have done on the study

        MR. McCARTY:  One or two points of clarification while you
are here.  Your statements reflect the policy of the San Francisco
Chapter; is that correct?

        MR. ROYCE:  That is correct.

        MR. McCARTY:  What geographical area is that?

        MR. ROYCE:  The San Francisco Bay Chapter includes the
counties of San Francisco, Marin, Alameda and Contra Costa.  We
get into the Delta area because of our Contra Costa representation.

        MR. McCARTY:  And do you know if the parent organization
is considering an adoption of policies of this type?

        MR. ROYCE:  I can tell you the following:  There is at the
present time a study group working under the Northern California
Regional Conservation Committee which is a coordinating group on
this problem.  It is a joint committee and includes members of the
Bay Chapter.

        The Redwood Chapter, which includes Napa and Solano and
the Mother Lode, which includes the Delta area — that group has
had a couple of meetings.

        Pete Zars and myself are both members of that group.  It
is preparing a report which in general is following the lines that
have been laid down by our Bay Chapter report.  But, of course, we
cannot say that that is what the final report will be, but those
are the lines it is taking at the present time.  Once that work
has been done, that will then go back to the Northern California
Regional Committee for consideration, and from that Committee, it
will go to the Board of Directors for the National Club.

        That's the state we are involved in at the present time.

        MR. McCARTY:  One final question:  As you may have noticed

this morning, one of the questions we have been pushing quite hard
is the question of how to best manage the nation's estuaries.  What
is the general relationship between local. State and Federal
interests?   Do you, as an individual or as a conservationist
speaking for the Sierra Club have any views on this matter?

        MR. ROYCE:  Well, it is clear that many agencies are
involved by the nature of the problems, and that has to be the
case.  Therefore, it has to be cooperative.  That's a conclusion
you cannot escape due to the fact there are both State and Federal
agencies involved, and they come at the problem with different
responsibilities, and those responsibilities cannot be divorced
from those particular agencies.  So, there has to be a cooperative

        In terms of the Bay Area, the chapter has taken the
position to support a limited Bay Area Regional Government as out-
lined in the BCDC report.  This was the stand that was taken before
the final BCDC came out.  The recommendation was one that is

        MR. McCARTY:  Excuse me, this was a Chapter that took this

        MR. ROYCE:  The Chapter took this position, correct.  The
Club has made the question of saving the Bay a national policy.
It did that at its last meeting.  It did not, however, go into
specifics at that time, but we'll certainly be getting into that.
I'm afraid you will be hearing more from us.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you very much, Mr. Royce.

        I would like to now call on Peter H. Zars, who is also a
member of the San Francisco Chapter of the Sierra Club.

        MR. PETER H. ZARS:  As Mr. Royce has explained, we have
been doing an intensive amount of study, and since we are not
adequately funded for anything of this kind — you understand,
this is all volunteer work.  But, I would like to see the Federal
Government especially and State and local governments do more
work on the questions that you have listed here.   We have our
own ideas, but the funding is hardly the problem of getting to the
bottom of it.

        We have realized that the aesthetic values which we are
striving for are very difficult to put values on, and we realize
that we are in competition with other values, especially dollar
values.  We have thought about how to put a value on aesthetics,
and we have come up with a suggestion, an approach that we are
starting to work on now.  I speak both for the Bay-Delta Water

Quality Committee and the Technical Subcommittee for the Regional
Sierra Club Chapters.

        The problem I think can be attacked — that is, the problem
of putting a dollar value on aesthetics — can be attacked by
correlating it to the amount of money that people are willing to
pay for the tools that it will take them to get out into the out-
doors.  Now, the value of a tool does not necessarily mean the
value of the end product.  It is a tool.  So, if they spend
thousands and millions and billions of dollars on outdoor recre-
ation equipment such as sailboats or motorboats or water skis or
fishing rods or hip boots or whatever have you, you can get an
idea of the value that they are placing on the outdoor experience
because these are the tools.  These are the only tools.

        You can take like, for instance, if you wanted to estab-
lish the value of the Bay and Delta to fish or to motorboating or
to sailboating, you could do as we have started to to find out
the relative registrations of boats over 20 feet in this area and
see that the registrations are rising at an 8 percent a year
increase where the population is going up at the rate of 5 percent.
The 8 percent increase doubles itself; that is, if it is com-
pounded as it is in this case, it doubles itself at about twice
the rate of the 5 percent increase.  This is just the percentages
compounded, so that if the registrations are increasing at 8
percent per year, you can have an idea of the value that is being
put to this outdoor type of experience and the values that are
going into it in order to give people the tools to use this thing
that we are talking about — the aesthetic enjoyment.

        You can take the other side of it — you can take the cost
and also consider that; the cost of not having it available.  I
think as our cities become more and more crowded and as the people
are becoming more and more impacted in them and are, let's say,
becoming more inhuman, you will find that the costs of this are
immeasurable in terms of all kinds of antisocial behavior or in
terms of mental illness or what have you.  These costs, I think,
should also be considered in evaluating an area such as this
estuary which we are speaking about here locally.

        The big hazard at this time is the pollution problem.  It
is the biggest single item that is affecting our Bay-Delta system.
As Mr. Royce pointed out, the pollution isn't necessarily due to
the fact that we are going to dump in twice as much.  It is also
the fact that we are going to reduce the water volumes that are
used to dilute it because we are working on pollution solutions
as the solution to pollution.  If we are going to subtract half
the water, you will be doubling the pollution.  There is your

        I think there are two ways of looking at the costs of
pollution and the effect on the environment.  I think our approach
will be that it is best to clean it up as soon as it takes place
or, in other words, treat it at the source.   Take the example of
the litter bag.  It is much easier through a public education
program to convince people to carry a litter bag than it is to
send somebody out with a stick with a nail at the end of it and
have it retrieved as it is diluted into the countryside.  The same
maintenance is true for all other forms of pollution.  It is much
easier to treat them at the source than it is to minimize the

        Another factor in here is that pollution or degradation of
any kind attracts pollution.  You only have to look at the ends of
our roads or at the ends of the city streets and you find that
because there is a beer can there, there will be other beer cans
tomorrow.  So, the idea of cleaning it up as soon as it takes
place has been found to be an efficient way of treating pollution.

        Those two ways of treating it — of attacking the problem
of pollution — are by far the most economical.  This, of course,
takes into consideration the fact that we are dealing with the
public and that they have to be educated to this, and I think in
this regard, the Sierra Club or at least our activities are going
to be channeled in that direction.  We had a little TV show on a
Sacramento station in an attempt to point this up.  We have had
some very good responses from it.  I think if we continue to point
out the dangers and how anyone can participate in cleaning them up
or in mitigating them, I think the public participation is vital.
We feel it is implicit on the government, the various units having
jurisdiction over the Bay and Delta system — that it is implicit
on them to also act on the public behalf and that they should
cooperate in the control and the management of the estuary.

        We are watching here more or less the death of a great
natural asset, a great recreational resource, and it is somewhat
like the tragedy of the Commons, where gradually attrition isn't
noticed by anyone, but the cumulative effect is enormous.

        We would like to try to save the Bay and the Delta.  We
would like to maybe enhance and improve it.  In looking over the
entire picture in our study, we have more or less come to the
conclusion that there is no reason on earth why this area could
not be made into an absolute paradise.  We know enough about the
management of dams, flood control projects to mitigate the effects
of nature which have been drastic in the past or even salt intru-
sion which has been drastic in the past.  We can protect our
natural assets, we can protect our ecosystem, our environment, by
the proper management.  I think we can improve on it, and, as I
say again, there is no reason at all in our estimation why the

ecology cannot be considered in these studies; why there cannot
be a crash program to try to save the Bay and the Delta now.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Zars, for a very thoughtful

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I am very much interested in the method of
developing this thing as to the tools that would be used.  That is
an approach I have not heard before, and I think it certainly has
merit.  That is one way of getting at this, but, getting down to
the Bay and Delta or the estuary, who would you think should
manage it?

        MR. ZARS:  Well, as I said earlier, I think it should be
in relation to the jurisdiction. If the Federal Government has
jurisdiction over the ships that dock at the Naval Shipyard in
Alameda and can prevent their 4,000-man crew from polluting the
Bay, they should, and I think as far as the ownership of the Bay
is concerned, I think wherever the State-owned lands are in
question or where Federal-owned lands are in question, I think
they should be managed in that relation.  But, in the overall
picture, I think my personal hope would be that if it is proven
that the local, the municipalities and then the State cannot take
care of the situation, I think our last hope will be that the
Federal Government can come in and finally put down the lid and
say, "well, this is enough; from here on we are going to enhance
the thing and clean it up."

        I think that is probably the stand that the Federal
Government has taken in the East, and whatever it is called —
coercion or education — I think we need it.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Do you think we are going to do that as
far as the population is concerned, too?

        MR. ZARS:  I hope that we can educate the people well
enough, and I am sure that once the comparative values are known
and once we can say or once we can reasonably put a price on this,
we will realize it does not take much to save something that is
extremely valuable.

        MR. McCARTY:  One last question, Mr. Zars:  Your proposal
about developing dollar values for aesthetics based on tools and
recreation — do you know of any places where this approach is
being applied to any extent trying to get the values for this?

        MR. ZARS:  Well, there are all kinds of evaluations.  For
instance, the cost of or the expenditures in a certain area where
the weekenders come in and you take the total cash receipts from
that period.  That is one way.  It does not take into consideration

the tools.

        There are other visitor days or visitor hours or increment
hours of 12 hours or 10 hours — whatever they are — that the
Federal-State Fish and Game and other agencies have tried to
evaluate.  We find those lacking in the real dollar and cents
values.  I think we will have to use some of that, but the tool
idea is what we are working on right now.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  It will be interesting to see what you
come up with.

        MR. ZARS:  We may come up with a terrific value,

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Zars.

        I would like to call on our next speaker, Dr. Fred Tarp
who will be speaking as a private citizen.

        I know you have charts.  Probably I ought to make one
statement we have made earlier to speakers with materials to
present.  This will all be part of a transcript that will be pre-
pared in black and white, so anything you have in color, try to
speak so it will be intelligible in the record.  Would you like
some way to display them?

        DR. FRED H, TARP:  I will just simply hold them up.  I
would like to speak as a private citizen tonight although I have
done, as you know, work on the Delta in a consultant capacity.

        The basic problem that I feel that is facing the Bay at
this particular time in history is, of course, the wastes which
are coming into the area via industrial waste waters which, of
course, are coming in, via nutrients which, of course, come in
from the sewage, which you know as well as I do.  The region of
the estuary also suffers from this particular problem.  I think,
in addition, that the Delta at this particular time may not suffer
some of these problems totally, but as time progresses and as
future populations build up with agricultural waste waters, with
industrial waste waters, with municipal waste waters, with increased
population, this, too, will become a hazard.

        I feel that it is possible by a system of waste water manage-
ment — just as the previous speaker stated — that it is possible
to stop this at its source, and I think this is, of course, the
attack that should be taken.  But, I do feel that there is still
another problem which is involved in the entire system which has
been ignored to a certain extent, and it is this:  That an estuary
or an estuarian system by its very development depends on the waters
which feed it, and thereby form a salinity gradient which is of

considerable extent.    Any reduction in flow into such an area will
reduce this gradient and make it a more sharp gradient.

        I think the point that is missing in the studies which have
been made to date and not the effect, let us say, of a particular
toxic material or a particular substance upon organisms, per se,
in their physiological adaptation, but I think the interactions
which would result between populations in an area is an area which
has been virtually ignored simply because I realize it is such an
extremely difficult problem to predict and to work on even.

        What I am saying is that the flows of water that enter from
the San Joaquin and Sacramento system into our estuarine system are
necessary for the maintenance of the present population.  Whether
you have a population composed of exotic organisms like we certainly
have in the Delta region or whether you are dealing with endemic
species, you have one thing in common, and that is that they are
all organisms which have evolved literally on hundreds of thousands
of millions of years in a high-flow, slack-summer type of environ-
ment, and I think the success, for example, of the early populations
of striped bass is that they were originally introduced with almost
entirely the characteristics of the Delta at that time.  In other
words, the floods — all of these things — certainly had their

        Now, the data on this is relatively slim, but in recent
months some data has come forth, and that is what my exhibit is
tonight, and I think this particular data will bear out some of
this idea.

        Let us take this one first which shows salinities that have
occurred already in the area and in this case, during June and July,
at Collinsville.  At a previous time, the Department of Fish and
Game attempted to make striped bass abundance indices for the area.
They had very little luck in this regard.  Then, they started to
check the abundance of the inch and a half long fishes and plotting
the Delta salinity in chlorides and parts per million, ranging from
3,000 to 2,000 to a thousand, and then taking the relative abun-
dance index which is based on both the numbers of organisms caught
in the particular area in the fishing time.  With all of these
taken into account in the region of the Delta, we see we have a
line that has about — in this case — about a minus 10.92 K
factor which gives us a correlation in the neighborhood of 1 percent.

        So, this is important, but I do think that the salinities
that we observe here are the result of outflows, and certainly we
could tie in many other things with this type of figure.  For
example, it might be said that such a figure is taken at the
present, under present situations that we have in the Delta, that
it could be involved with the TDS which blocked migration, and
certainly one will find that TDS in these lower areas for the

  Striped Bass

Abundance Index
                                      «4    6   8 10       20   30  UO
                                   Delta Outflow u.'iolisund cfs)
                FIGURE 1,  Relationship  between  young striped bass abundance and Delta
                outflow.  Abundance  is expressed as an index of the number of Lass
                present in the  Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary when their mean length
                is 1,5 inches.   Delta outflow is the June-July mean at Chipps Island
                as listed in  the Department  of Water Resources, Surface Water Flow
                Bulletins,  Numbers  on figure designate years.

  Turner, Jerry L. and Chadwick,  Harold K.  Relationship of Young Striped Bass Abundance
      to Delta Outflow and Salinity:  A Progress Report.  Delta Fish and Wildlife  Pro-
      tection Study.  October  10,  1968.   (Figures  1 & 2)

  Striped Bass

Abundance Index
                         3000               2000               1000

                                 Delta Salinity (Chlorides in ppm)
                 FIGURL 2.  Relationship between young striped bass abundance and
                 Delta salinity.  Abundance is expressed as an index of the number
                 of bass present in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary when their
                 mean length is 1.5 inches.  Delta salinity is the mean June-July
                 chloride concentration at Collinsville.  Chloride measurements are
                 grab samples and are reported in the Department of Water Resources,
                 Surface Water Flow Bulletins.  Numbers on figure designate years.

San Joaquin River were such that the migrations were blocked into
that area.

        I think this is not the whole story, that what we are
basically dealing with is if we take the abundance index in
relation to Delta outflow, we get this type of a figure which is
a correlation of 0.94 K with Delta outflow of — in thousands of
cubic feet per second, 1, 2, 4 — it becomes asymptomatic in this
area simply because of the mechanism which is involved in the
population production.  However, here we are dealing with the
possibilities — despite the fact that this is present data, we
are dealing with distinct possibilities that we have the results
of, say, turbidity involved here which could have a food change
relationship.  The lack of turbidity at this end, let us say,
would allow water transparency where the organisms were in canni-
balistic forms.

        We know from the studies that are done that one of the
models that has been established for the demise of sardines takes
into account the extended period which they are exposed to pre-
dation and, hence, high years; very limited predation, long
years, or in years of long larval development, they are exposed
for extremely long periods of time.  Here we have a condition
where possibly in these low flows during these periods of times
that we are dealing with organisms which — it could be this
predation.  It could be factors of this sort which are population
factors rather than sheer biocides, pollutants, waste waters —
this type of thing.  And, I think this type of information is the
type of information that must be explored before we make state-
ments about how much outflow are we going to allow.

        This is Delta outflow during the months of June and July,
and these are plotted against the organisms in July and August —
survival rate, if you will, in this respect.

        I have done preliminary studies on this, and so far I do
not find a great deal of correlation with the idea that it is due
to these other factors that have been presented prior to this
time, and I think the very nature of an estuarine situation, its
turbidity in itself, is a factor for survival of those organisms.
A very sharp gradient, for example — I use this for an example,
but we do not know that this same thing might not occur to other
organisms whose life cycles may be intimately tied in with out-
flow, plus the fact we may be dealing with organisms which may
be active predators, the flushing that does occur to them main-
tains their population at limits which will not prove harmful.
Allow those large flushing flows to occur and occur during summer
months — these populations could possibly build up and have
marked effects on other populations.  I think this is one area
that has not really been explored.

        We have looked at it in terms of all the man-made effects
on it other than the flow directly, and I think the flow is some-
thing that is — something I know it is a difficult proposition to
talk about when we are discussing also flows to be sent some other
place, but I think that this is indicative enough that there should
be real in-depth studies on this particular problem.

        That is all I wanted to say.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Going back to your first chart there.
Dr. Tarp, that was at Collinsville?

        DR. TARP:  This is at Collinsville.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  If you made the same study and moved up-
stream to where you hit the thousand parts or the five hundred
parts, followed the salinity upstream until you met that and then
went ahead with the same test — did you try that?

        DR. TARP:  I did not try this, and I did not do this work
myself personally.  It is under investigation at the present time,
as I understand it.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I was just wondering —

        DR. TARP:  I believe they have taken into account the
abundance in areas dependent on how far they are away from, say,
the centers of dispersion they would be in this particular time of

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Who is making this?

        DR. TARP:  The Department of Fish and Game of California.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Have they completed this particular study?

        DR. TARP:  No, this particular work was first indicated in
late October of last year.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Are you acting as a consultant for them now?

        DR. TARP:  No, I am not.  I am acting as a private indi-
vidual who has lived here since day one, and I would like to have
my children see it as I saw it when I was about four.

        MR. McCARTY:  Dr. Tarp, would you give us a little further
definition of abundance index?  Does that take into account given
geographical areas?

        DR. TARP:  It takes the entire Delta system.  They sampled

the entire Delta.  They weight the area — the various areas are
weighted.  The catches are weighted.  The types of nets which are
used are weighted.  All these things are taken into account, and
from this, they derive an abundance and an index,  and this is what
this is based on.

        MR. McCARTY:  Are copies of these charts available on a
smaller scale for transcript?

        DR. TARP:  I just made up this chart from materials, and
the materials should be available from the Department of Fish and
Game.  If it is not, you can Xerox mine.

        MR. McCARTYj  Could we borrow those to photographically
reproduce them?

        DR. TARP:  Yes.  I do think this is such an important area
that really has yet to be explored.

        MR. McCARTY:  You have taken the time to come here and
speak to us on this particular point, and it would be a shame not
to have them in the transcript.

        DR. TARP:  If you wish, I could write up a little thing
and send it over with these on them.

        MR. McCARTY:  I think that would be helpful.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Probably we should identify them as Exhibit
1 and Exhibit 2 as far as the charts.

        DR. TARP:  We did the salinity first and then the other one.

        MR. McCARTY:  If this would not be too much trouble, we
would certainly appreciate it.

        DR. TARP:  No.

        MR. McCARTY:  You know that we will receive statements
until the 14th.

        DR. TARP:  Yes.

        MR. McCARTY:  So, have it to us by then.  If you find for
some reason you cannot, simply give us the charts and we will
photographically reproduce them and get it into the transcript.

        DR. TARP:  Thank you.

        MR. McCARTY:  is there anyone else in the audience who would

like to make a statement at this time either as a private indi-
vidual or as representing an agency?

        MR. PETER H. ZARS:  I have several copies of our regular
June Report here that we are finalizing now if you need them or
would like them.

        MR. McCARTY:  This would be helpful as a part of the
record.  Are they available now?

        MR. ZARS:  Yes.

        MR, McCARTY:  Yes, we would like to have copies of those.

        MR0 ARTHUR L. OGILVIE:  My name is Arthur L. Ogilvie.  I
turned in a card with the intent of making a presentation to you
tomorrow, but inasmuch as you have asked if there are some people
who would like to respond this evening, I would like to respond as
a private citizen.  My professional work is with Santa Clara
County Planning Department.  What I am going to bring to your atten-
tion is not in an official capacity, so I am speaking as an individual,

        What I am going to state may be something that you people
are wholly aware of, and then again, it may not be.  It is something
that has come to my attention in the last couple or three weeks that
really shocks me very much.  I think the best way to equate this
situation is to sort of compare this type of water pollution or, I
should say, better water poisoning — the reason why we may have
overlooked this is because you cannot equate it like you would air

        If an individual plant or an individual were to put this
kind of poison into the air, it would be so obvious immediately that
he would be closed down within 12 hours.  The situation that I am
speaking of is forms of poison from man's cleansing methods.  One
example is laundries that hire itinerant contractors to haul off
their waste waters, waste waters which, for example, the City and
County of San Francisco will not allow to be discharged into the
sewers, and it is my information or understanding that there are
only two dumps in the entire Bay Area where "hot" waters are per-
mitted to be dumped.  I understand this is at Vallejo and Martinez,
and the Warden for the County Pish and Game Department discovered
the contractors crossing county lines and dumping it directly into
the streams of Santa Clara County and, of course, this is in direct
violation, and there has been investigation started.

        He has called in representatives of the State Water Pollution
Control and State Water Quality, but this has not been brought to
the attention of the public in general, and I think it is something
that we should all become aware of and the sooner we all become

aware of it, the sooner we can fight this situation and put a stop
to it and plug the loopholes in our rules and regulations and laws
and perhaps be in a position to see to it and insist that the rules,
regulations and laws are made to stop these situations.

        In addition to this, since that particular episode, he has
also apprehended another contractor doing similar types of dumping
directly into the open waters that feed directly into the estuaries
of South San Francisco Bay, and, as a result of this, he has gotten
very alarmed and called a meeting with one of the State Legislators
who is very interested in the water pollution control system and
water quality.

        He has also called a meeting of different contractors who
contract to haul off these types of waters, and sitting down with
them, he posed the question: "Is there association representing
you people; do you people belong to an association?"  It was his
information from the gathering that there was no such association,
so, therefore, there are no controls among themselves to police
their own problems that they are causing the public.

        The next question he posed to them:  "How much do you
people haul?"  They looked at each other as if they did not know,
and so they began to converse among themselves, and the figure was
30,000 gallons per day per one county, and in the instance of my
asking him this question:  "What about, say, for example, wastes
from atomic or, I should say, radiological chemicals and so forth?"
He said, frankly, he did not know, and he said he doubted whether
they knew and he didn't even know there are AEC rules and regu-
lations — very stiff ones.

        No one at this point seems to know whether or not this
thing in many instances is not being dropped directly into our
streams and going into the Bay.  And so, I did a little mental
calculating that if you want to equate this situation with the
Bay Area and we have nine counties contributing, we have in round
figures roughly 300,000 gallons of this poisonous material going
into our Bay directly or trickling and eventually reaching the Bay
in the great part from this type of operation, and there, for the
first time to my understanding, there will be beginning some press
releases and some publicity will start to go into the papers.

        But, nevertheless, that is not going to stop it right away,
and it means that people that can draw up such legislation and can
foster such legislation makes it necessary for them to look into
this matter and take the proper steps to see about it.

        In addition to that, there are some other situations that
are extremely critical, and I equate this to the fact that San
Jose — that area — the public has been very representative as far

as pollution controls are concerned, and the latest election in
November — both for San Jose and Santa Clara — voted sizable bond
issues for expansion in addition to their sewage disposal plants.
And yet, some industries, whether it be people that are charged as
far as supervision or the workmen, are unaware of what they are
doing or it is accident, and, of course, accidents occasionally do
happen, but still and all, when samples are taken and you find five
times the amount of strychnines are going into the waters than is
supposed to — that fish, for example, can tolerate without dying —
what is this doing to vast areas for our estuaries — and this is

        Another instance of a plant that is dumping great quanti-
ties of extremely toxic chemicals, metallic substances — and when
the question was raised about their dumping and so forth, you run
into this ugly head of, "well so and so knows about that.  He
doesn't think that it's any great problem."

        Unfortunately, due to the fact that this plant is a rather
sizable employer — well, you know how it is.  It is that we will
sort of kind of overlook this.

        Well, I say personally it is time that we stop overlooking
this because a company is a great employer and brings a lot of
money into the community.  I think that these are some avenues and
things that we need to look at more closely.  I know in the past
that one of the Federal establishments in South Bay caused us some
problems as far as dropping pollutants into one of the drainage
channels which in turn got into the South Bay, and one or two of
the speakers previously this evening mentioned this, and I think
this is something that needs to also be looked into.

        Tomorrow when I am here, I will be back and I will have
another presentation, but it will be from our Department.  Thank

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Ogilvie.  Do you have any
questions. Bill?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I am amazed at some of the statements that
Mr. Ogilvie has made in regard to the industry and also to Federal
agencies in that particular area.  Have these matters been before
the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Executive Officer
of that?  Have you broached this subject with them?

        MR. OGILVIE:  This information that I have revealed here
came to me from the Warden of the County Fish and Game Department —
Commission rather.  And, at the same time, he has also been the
Chairman of the Commission, and he came across these situations
in his work or in his position rather.  He feels he is in a
position where he can do a great service to the County.

        These things many of you perhaps or at least I,  for one,
have never stopped to think about — this type of operation.  You
talk about septic tank pumpers and about them going out and clean-
ing out septic tanks.  At the same time, it did not really occur to
me that they might be in other activities going out and pumping out
waste that could be detrimental.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, there are county ordinances in many
counties that I am knowledgeable on on this particular subject, and
county officials, themselves, are taking care of it, and in some
instances, of course, the Regional Water Quality Control Board is
looking after it.  I would like to have some more evidence along
the lines of what you are talking about here.

        MR. OGILVIE:  Well, after the meeting, off the record, I
will be very happy to give you the name of this gentleman, and if
you would like to contact him, I am sure he would be very happy to
cooperate with you and give you all the information he has on this

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Thank you very much.

        MR. McCARTY:  Is there anyone else who wishes to make a
statement this evening?  If not, we will recess the meeting once
again and reconvene again tomorrow morning at 9:15 a.m.  Thank you
for coming this evening.

         (The Hearing was recessed at 8:40 p.m.)

        ...The Hearing was reconvened at 9:15 o'clock a.m. on
Wednesday, February 19, 1969...

        MR. McCARTY:  My name is James Mccarty, and I'm represent-
ing the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,  On my
right is William Alexander, representing the State Water Resources
Control Board.

        We are reconvening our public meeting this morning.  This
will be the last in a series of sessions here in San Francisco,
which began yesterday morning at nine o'clock.

        For those of you who weren't here yesterday to hear the
opening remarks, I will make a few brief statements before we
receive more comments from various participants.

        These public meetings are designed primarily to receive
your statements, your views on the Nation's estuaries.  In particu-
lar, we are interested in knowing what you think about pollution
problems in the estuaries; the effects of these pollution problems
on beneficial uses; the values of estuaries, the dollar values,
the aesthetic values, personal values, recreational values that
you might attach to the estuaries.

        We would like to get your views on what you think the best
uses of our Nation's estuaries are.

        We would also like to particularly get from you any
thoughts you may have on a system of management for estuaries:
Should a local interest, State interest, Federal interest be
related, or work together in managing estuaries.

        Your views and comments will, be recorded in an official
transcript of this meeting and it will be made available for anyone
interested in receiving a copy.  If you haven't already done so,
I would encourage you to register at the rear desk and put your
name on the list, and one will be automatically mailed to you.

        These transcripts will be sent to our Washington Office,
where they will be collated, and a file collated transcript will
be developed which is based on your comments and views.

        One last point:  Those of you who don't feel they can make
a statement this morning, but would like to make some remarks for
the record, if you would like to do this, if you contact Mr.
Irving Terzich at the rear of the room, he will give you the
details of the proper procedure.

        Let me emphasize, anything that you want to put in the
transcript, please remember that the transcript will appear in

black and white, and anything in color will appear that way.   You
will have to realize this, and any remarks you have to make you
will have to take this into account, otherwise your statement will
appear unintelligible.

        Would you like to continue any opening remarks before we

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Yes, that I, too, want to welcome you here
on behalf of the State water Control Board.  We are happy to  be a
part of these public hearings.

        I would add — mention another public meeting, this will
continue in Los Angeles on February 25 and 26,  in case there is
anyone here that knows of anyone who would like to make a public
appearance at that particular time.  The Water Resources Control
Board has been appointed by the Secretary of the Resources Agency,
Mr. Livermore, to coordinate this particular study and see that
all the preliminary reports are distributed to all interested
agencies within the State, and then, if we receive the answers back
so that the Resources Agency can report to the FWPCA, and have this
information available for being forwarded to Washington for their
final report.

        That's about all that I have.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you. Bill.

        Our first speaker this morning, for our first speaker, I
would like to call on Congressman Jerome R. Waldie from the
Fourteenth Congressional District of California.  This takes  in,
I believe. Contra Costa County.

        The rostrum is right there, I believe it's on.

        CONGRESSMAN JEROME R. WALDIE:  Shall I address myself to
you or to the audience?

        MR. McCARTY:  If it's possible, the entire audience.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  I prefer to have my back to the

        Mr. McCarty of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, and the State Water Resources, Mr. Alexander; I
think this is an extremely valuable exercise in trying to determine
some of the problems connected with the preservation and conser-
vation and protection of our estuaries in the United States,  and
particularly in California, and even more particularly in the Bay

        I suspect there are probably a few estuaries of the
magnificance of the one that we are privileged to have in San
Francisco's Delta Bay — San Francisco Bay Delta Estuarine System,
and I share the concern that so many people have undoubtedly
already expressed before this hearing? that that Estuarine System
is being rapidly depleted and destroyed by inattention in part,
by lack of understanding of the effects of actions or reactions in
terms of the estuary by fill, which is obviously dangerous to the
Estuarine System, and by pollution, which is equally dangerous to
the Estuarine System.  Understandably, the concern with the
Estuarine System and the dangers that can be done to it, generally
stops with the consideration of the problem of fill and the prob-
lem of active pollution of the Estuarine System, but there's
another danger to all estuarine systems throughout the United
States, and particularly to our Estuarine System, and that was
described in a study done by Mr. B. J. Copeland, entitled "The
Effects of Decreased River Flow on Estuarine Ecology."  He dis-
cussed the problem of what happens to the estuary when you build
reservoirs and dams on the upstream sources of fresh water for the
estuary, and diminishing the flow of fresh water into the estuary
system; and he concludes that the practice of decrease in river
flow by the installation of reservoirs is frequently followed
without consideration or prior knowledge of the effects downstream,
particularly in effects on estuaries produced by the balance of
river discharge and the distribution of the sea.

        With decreased river flow, the current system can be so
altered that shoaling and coursing can set up completely foreign

        I find the timing of this speech topic. The Rape of
Northern Waters, to be somewhat ill-timed what with the recent
record rains, the Sierra snowpack, their anticipated runoffs and
the fact that some flooding has occurred here in the North.

        It becomes quite apparent, in fact, that we in the
northern part of the State have an abundant supply of water.

        It is to the credit of this State's Water Resource Planners
and Dam Builders that the facilities of the California Water
Project and the central Valley Project have prevented even more
loss of life and dollar damage from flooding during this extremely
wet winter.

        However—I have not come before you today to praise the
California Water Project.  As a matter of fact I have no intention
of even being kind to it.

        I have come to bury the water project as it is today and
to call on the State of California to make drastic changes in its

outlook and its water export project so that the northern part of
the State, and particularly the magnificent and varied waters of
the San Francisco Bay - Delta Estuarine System, so blessed with a
sufficiency of fresh water, will not become in fact a biological

        I fear that without more regard for — and some means of
protection for — the Life Systems of the North — in particular
the San Francisco Bay Estuarine System — the State will knowingly
and by design sacrifice this unique and irreplaceable resource in
order to meet its contractual and statutory water export require-
ments .

        The most frustrating aspect of this entire problem is that
there is no place to go in California, outside the courts, to get
an even reasonably fair hearing on matters affecting the allocation
of water resources.  There is no administrative or quasi-judicial
body, commission or agency in California that allocates water or
adjudicates water controversies, that is not carefully contrived
to arrive at predetermined judgments advancing the overall plan
to export Delta water to the South.

        I seek to prove to you today that if an area involved in
a water controversy not a customer purchasing water from the
Department of Water Resources and the State Water Project — that
area will not find relief or assistance from any State Agency or
Board, when it is in conflict with a customer area.

        I will show you how the role of the Department of Water
Resources has changed from a conservation agency to a State-
operated utility which is in the business of selling the State's
Water Resources — a role which is unique in all the fifty states.

        I also intend to show how every State project affecting
the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuarine System is designed solely
to benefit the Southern users of the California Water Project —
customers, if you will — of the Department of Water Resources —
with only incidental benefits to the Bay-Delta area.

        Let us first examine the most unusual and highly question-
able role of the Department of Water Resources.  Until empowered
by the Burns-Porter Act of 1959 to do so — the Department never
engaged in the act of marketing what it was constitutionally
charged with protecting — the State's precious water resources.

        With the passage of the Burns-Porter Act by the Legislature
and I was one who voted against it — the Department of Water
Resources was mandated by the Legislature to sell — not protect —
these resources.  This change in mandate has resulted in the
Department becoming totally customer-oriented.  Thus we see the

Department stooping to such indignities as suppressing reports of
such agencies as the Department of Fish and Game if those reports
in any way cast doubts on the means or plans designed to attain
the Department's single goal of providing the contracted amount of
high quality water to its customers in the San Joaquin Valley and
Southern California.

        The estrangement between the Department of Pish and Game
and the Department of Water Resources began soon after the placing
of all the natural resource agencies of the State under the all-
encompassing Resources Agency.

        It became apparent that the Resources Agency was aiding
and assisting the Department of Water Resources in its export
business when budget time came around.

        Studies for fish and wildlife enhancement and preservation
in the Delta were blue-penciled whereas State monies for un-
authorized projects essential to the export business of the
Department of Water Resources such as the proposed Peripheral
Canal, were approved.

        One budgetary axing in particular is indicative of how
strongly the Department feels about its obligation to export Delta
water to its Southern customers even though adverse consequences
may thereby ensue to the Bay-Delta area.

        In October of last year a preliminary study by Fish and
Game Department biologists discovered a sharp correlation between
salinity and fresh water outflow and the mortality of young striped
bass in the Delta area.

        The study revealed that the number of striped bass young
surviving in midsummer is directly linked with water outflow from
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers—and the relationship has a
significant implication for water development programs in the
Delta such as the Peripheral Canal.

        In short, the Fish and Game Department concluded that the
reduced outflow and resultant higher saline content of the water
would result in a drastic and intolerable reduction in the striped
bass fishery.

        Seeing the great significance of this finding, the biolo-
gists attempted to enter the preliminary report in the already
prepared task report of the Bay-Delta Study—part of which was
being written by the Department of Fish and Game.

        However—this most important finding was not included in
the preliminary report text—even though it was a new facet of the

Bay-Delta ecology with dramatic new possibilities for further study.

        Shortly afterwards the Department of Fish and Game learned
that a further study of the effect of reduced outflow on the striped
bass fishery was slashed from the Department's budget by the
Resources Agency and the Department of Fish and Game was forced to
apply for funds from a federal agency and a private foundation.  It
would appear, then, as if the State of California does not want to
learn whether or not its water exportations via the Peripheral
Canal will devastate a thriving sports fishery and recreational
facility—despite indications that this could very well occur.

        The Fish and Game Department was given a stunning rebuke
by the Water Resources Director just recently when three fish and
wildlife experts from the State of Washington were hired to conduct
a study on how to operate the Peripheral Canal to protect the
fishery—despite months of negotiations with the State Fish and
Game officials on the same matter—negotiations which broke down
after the Department of Water Resources refused to accept facts
that would jeopardize its export plans.

        It is my feeling that the Department of Water Resources and
its Director, Mr. Gianelli, have stacked every major decision-
making Water Agency of importance in the State with persons having
direct allegiance to water customers of the Department—especially
the Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles.

        As an example of this contention, since the creation of
the California Water Plan, the State Water Rights Board and the
Water Quality Control Board were lumped together as the State
Water Resources Control Board.

        Thus the single most important agency for resolving disputes
as to the allocation of the State's Water Resources is no longer
impartial—and we have learned from repeated experiences before
that Board that a non-customer of the State cannot expect to get
a fair shake before it if his dispute involves a water customer of
the State.

        In my opinion one only has to look at the background of
the men who comprise this Board to see the built-in conflicts of
interests that must result.

        Let us first consider the Chairman, Kerry W. Mulligan.
Mr. Mulligan, although admittedly a Northern Californian, was
until January the Executive officer of the Board.  His complete
allegiance to the water export policies of the Department are
very well known.

        Board Member, Edward F. Dibble, another appointee of

Governor Reagan was at the time of his appointment Manager of the
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency—a customer of the State—and
Engineer and Manager of the San Bernadino Valley Water Conservation
District—another area to receive northern waters.  He has served
as President of the California Water Resources Association—a
leading agriculturally oriented organization supporting the shipment
of good water at low prices to the undeveloped south.

        Board member Norman B. Hume was another appointee of
Governor Reagan with Southern California water user roots.  At the
time of his appointment, Mr. Hume was serving as Director of the
Bureau of Sanitation of the city of Los Angeles.

        William A. Alexander joined the newly-formed Water Resources
Control Board at its inception in 1967 having formerly served on
the State Water Rights Board since 1961.  An Engineer, Mr. Alexander
had been employed by the Department of Water Resources, the U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation and the corps of Army Engineers.  He has
served as Chief Engineer, Manager and Consultant to a number of
lower San Joaquin Valley Water Districts.

        Lastly we have George B. Maul, an appointee of Governor
Reagan who voluntarily stepped aside as Chairman of this important
and powerful Board to make way for former staff member Kerry
Mulligan after the only voice of the San Francisco Bay Area,
Ralph J. McGill, was not reappointed to the Board.  Maul, an
Attorney has served as General Counsel for the El Dorado Irrigation
District and has provided legal services for other irrigation and
water service districts.

        One can readily see the difficulty of arguing the cause
of the non-customer bay area for retention of Bay-Delta waters
when such a decision would limit the ability of the Department of
Water Resources to export Delta water to its customers—or—would
increase the cost of export waters to its customers.

        Our problems here in the San Francisco Bay Estuarine
System are further compounded by the fact that every facet of the
California Water Plan affecting this system is designed not to
protect the Bay-Delta system but to speed high quality Delta
water to the South with the utmost efficiency at the cheapest cost
and with little regard for the consequences of this policy on the
Bay-Delta system.

        Let us use, for example, the proposed Peripheral Canal—
the Canal, a 43-mile long, unlined conveyance facility, will
divert a major portion of the Sacramento River near Hood and
transport water along the eastern periphery of the Delta, and
terminate in the Clifton Court Forebay in the southeastern corner
of Contra Costa County.

        The menace of the Peripheral canal,  as far as we in Contra
Costa County are concerned,  lies with the fact that the Canal is
a physical facility which gives virtual control of the entire flow
of the Sacramento River and Delta to the U.  S. Bureau of Reclama-
tion, and/or worse, the State Department of  Water Resources.

        We have been assured by Mr. Gianelli and others, that the
Canal was principally designed to convey high quality water to the
project pumps at Clifton Court at the same time protecting the
Delta fishery by reducing the pumping of free floating striped
bass eggs and fingerlings directly from Delta channels during the
spawning season.

        This is what we have been told—but there are a growing
number of persons who are understandably worried over the assurances
of the Department on this or any other matter.  In fact, there are
those of us who believe the Canal has no benefit for the Delta but
is solely for benefit of Los Angeles, etc.

        You see, the fishery problem will not be solved by the
Canal unless adequate releases are made out of the Canal westerly
and into the Sacramento River.

        To date the Canal is a nebulous thing without operational
agreements with the Department of Fish and Game, without an
assignment of responsibility as to whether the Bureau of Reclama-
tion or the Department of Water Resources will operate it—and
most importantly—without statutory provisions guaranteeing fresh
water releases to meet an as yet unsettled water quality criteria—
even though contractual commitments with downstream water users
would have to be sacrificed in dry year cycles.

        We fear that almost the entire flow of the Sacramento
River will be diverted southward and that once the tap is turned
on for Southern California—we in the Bay and Delta areas will not
be able to turn it off—with tragic consequences to the Bay-Delta

        The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has
evaluated the proposed Canal and concludes that it will materially
downgrade the quality of Delta water.

        The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration  report
warned that if the Canal were operated at water quality criteria
proposed by the State and the Bureau of Reclamation it would have
a very significant detriment to the Delta's agriculture and also
its fishery.  When we talk about water quality we really are
talking Delta outflows.

        There is great concern as to what effect the diversion of

a tremendous amount of existing fresh water outflows will have on
the life systems within the San Francisco Bay Estuarine System.

        I am especially troubled because State Officials and
Engineers preparing the Bay-Delta Study Report, with rare candor
admit that they themselves do not know what will happen to estuary
ecology given decreased Delta fresh water outflow.

        Certainly, the wetlands of estuaries such as the San
Francisco Bay-Delta system don't appear to be a great natural
resource with their smelly and musky marshes.  As one writer put
it—"They have neither the majestic grace of towering pines nor
the stark beauty of a desert.

       "This is one reason they are so readily squandered—nobody
loves a swamp."

        The dangers to estuaries such as our own Bay-Delta estuary
activities as filling and pollution with industrial and sewer
wastes is well known, and the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission has alerted the public to these dangers.

        But there is a third and no less important threat to the
Bay and the estuarine system that supports it — that of the
dimunition of fresh water outflows caused by the State exports of
Sacramento River water to the South.

        This is especially dangerous as the intricate current
system within estuaries is produced by the balance of river dis-
charges and the contribution of the sea.  With decreased river
flow the current system can be so altered that shoaling and
scouring can set up completely foreign physical conditions.

        The most important hydrobiolbgical parameter in an estuary
is salinity—if river flow is restricted by upstream diversions,
the salinity level in the receiving estuary may increase to the
detriment of estuarine biological communities.

        Marine life, much as freshwater life, lives precariously
close to the doorstep of death.  The slightest change in the
environment often spells doom for an entire specie; in estuaries
the chemical content of the water has critical and narrow limits.

        Important fluxes occur in the estuarine ecosystems during
the high flows of spring and fall including flows of vitamins and
other dissolved organic compounds, nutrients, lowered salinity by
the addition of fresh water and flushing and mixing influences.

        Looking at the proposed reductions of freshwater out-
flows planned by the State we can only deduce that the San

Francisco Bay-Delta Estuarine System is in for a drastic change.

        The present flows into the Bay are comprised of 70 percent
from the Sacramento River, 20 percent from the San Joaquin River
and 5 percent from other tributaries—outflows now total some 17.8
million acre feet per year on an average.

        Under the provisions of the State Water Plan this figure
will be reduced to 9.4 million acre feet by 1990 and 7.2 million
acre feet by the year 2020.  These are Department of Water
Resources figures.

        Other statistics furnished by the Contra Costa Water Agency
reveal that this outflow could be reduced to as little as 2.5
million acre feet in a dry year cycle.

        Not only is this 60 to 70 percent cut in the quantity of
fresh water entering the Bay a factor in ecological change—but the
manner by which the cut will be implemented should have a profound
and probably adverse effect on the Bay life systems.

        Freshwater outflows will amount to a steady, regulated,
unvarying meager 1,700 cubic feet per second nine months out of the
year with only January, February and March seeing anything even
remotely approaching the normal fluctuations that now characterize
the estuary outflows.

        The effect this artificially induced regularity will have
on marine life accustomed to the variance and diversity of present
freshwater outflows can be assumed to be of considerable impact
and mostly negative.  Life in an estuarine system is wonderfully
complex—to "harness" that complex diversity is to risk its
serious alteration, if not its extinction!

        The reduction of outflows can also be expected to cut down
the flushing action of the North Bay as well as allowing harmful
saline water intrusion into the western Delta area.

        The best flushing action presently in the Bay is in the
northern section where Delta outflows contribute necessary oxygen-
bearing waters to aid in the reduction of waste and hydraulic

        The worst flushing is in the South Bay where the absence
of inflows and circulation leaves water rocking up and down as if
in a tub with very little movement of pollutants.  The result has
been the occurrence of frequent eutrophication or algae blooms
which absorb already scarce oxygen and results in death of fish
and other marine life.

        I have just made some assumptions on the effects of

diminished freshwater inflows into the San Francisco Bay Estuarine
System—assumptions based on available data that indicates such
dimunitions would have a detrimental effect on existing life

        May I point out that the Department of Water Resources and
its Director, Mr. William Gianelli, have also made some assumptions
as to what will occur with a reduction in freshwater outflows.
His assumptions—however—are that these drastic changes will not
have detrimental effect.

        I would suggest that if the full effects of such a change
in the most important biological factor of a huge and diverse life
system is unknown—then we should proceed with all due caution and

        I suggest that we experiment on the side of caution and see
if our experimentation  results in detrimental effects.  If so
then we can proceed without destroying all present life.

        To do the opposite—as I fear is the intent of the
Department of Water Resources—would be a great error.  And one
that may not be reversible.

        I am in favor of a moratorium on water development and the
proposed shipment of water to the southern part of the State until
we know through new research and study what effects this proposed
export of northern water will have on the ecological systems of
the North—especially the San Francisco Bay Estuary.

        I wholly concur with results of the recent vote taken by
the Commonwealth Club of California where an overwhelming majority
favored increased control over utilization of San Francisco Bay
and also favored retention of the present boundaries of the Bay.

        I propose that the State Legislature authorize a com-
pletely new water resource and development agency.  An agency with
statutory checks and balances to provide the groundwork for work-
able development and careful protection of environments and
ecology systems.

        This agency would carefully inventory our water resources
and determine where they would best be used.  It would by law be
charged with the responsibility of conserving and protecting our
water resources—not exploiting and selling them.  It would be
above the political entanglements that have seen such agencies as
the Metropolitan Water District stretch out over vast areas of
the State and control the water resources of that area for the
use of its customers.

        I propose that the State Legislature also constitutionally
create an independent agency formed along the lines of the
Tennessee Valley Authority to act as the purveyor of State waters.
I am convinced that the State should not be in the business of
selling water.  The evils of the present situation in Sacramento
are apparent—they should not be permitted to continue.

        I propose that the State Legislature amend the Burns-
Porter Act so that the aforementioned changes in the structure of
the Department of Water Resources can be implemented as soon as

        I propose that with a review of the California Water Project
the State work to meet its contractual requirements to the South
and its moral requirements to the North not by the further rape
of North Coast waters—but by improved technology.

        The use of reclaimed water is one method eyed as a sub-
stitute for the uneconomical and wasteful transmission of water
over 500 miles for domestic use.

        Workable desalinization of sea  water is within our grasp.
Costs will be high  at first—but this is the way of the future.
I have no doubt in my mind that this will be the cheapest way to
provide fresh water for coastal urban centers before 1990.

        Water reclaimed from sewage in Southern California has
been developed at a cost comparable to water of the California
Water Project and of better quality than that shipped from the
Colorado River.

        Are we to ignore the technology of the present and the
future for the plumbing of the past?

        I think not.

        We must act now to protect our own environment, our Bay,
our Delta and our North Coast from the ruinous plans of the water-
hungry south and their minions in Sacramento.

        I pledge to you here today that we in Contra Costa will
continue our lonely fight to assure adequate water quality in the
Bay-Delta System.  I would hope others would join us.

        We—the extremists as Mr. Gianelli refers to us—will do
everything possible—including a massive suit that could tie up
the water project for years—to make certain that our unique
estuarine system does not turn into a black biological desert.

        We will continue the struggle to protect the waterfowl,

the wildlife and the fisheries of our Bay and Delta and of the
marvelous wild rivers of the North Coast.

        We have seen what an active and aware public can do for
conservation.  I refer to the outstanding work of the Bay Con-
servation and Development Commission and its efforts to alert the
public to the threats of Bay fill.

        We need a similar agency to protect the environment of the
entire Bay-Delta System—not just from fill and sewerage—but from
all the ill-effects of mankind upon his own environment.

        We now see the people of the Santa Barbara Coast right-
fully enraged over the spill of oil from approved offshore drilling
operations.  Operations approved because the West Coast allegedly
needs more crude oil—but operations that were known to be taking
place in an area of high seismic activity.  The tragedy of that
administrative act has yet to be fully calculated.

        But it will be only miniscule as compared to the ultimate
effects of the California Water Plan--quite possibly the most
costly and dangerous environmental disaster occurring in our State.

        Let us take stock and then proceed—but we must not blindly
go on—we may not survive such a mistake.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Congressman Waldie, I had a question or
two.  First on this Copeland report, do you have a copy or could
you tell me more about it as to when it was written and what it

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  Perhaps my — Mr. Newcomb, do you have
the data Copeland prepared?  We can get it to you, we can get it
from the Library of Congress.  It's a fairly recent report.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Is it on a certain estuary?

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  No, it's on all estuaries, although it
just — if I recall, for Chesapeake Bay and the Galveston Estuarine
System.  He used those, as well as — Galveston particularly as a
horrible example of what nan can do toestuarine systems and used the
Chesapeake Bay as a possible example, although they imagine it's
so huge, and the development around it, as far as that, man hasn't
had much opportunity to destroy that.

        This is the beautiful example in our system, where man is
surrounding it and destroying it.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  What is Copeland's background on that,  is
he an ecologist?

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  I'm sorry, I should know those things;
I don't.

        MR0 ALEXANDER:  But, you could send us a copy?

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  It was a Library of Congress resource,
but it appears to me that it was — it's a University publication,
but I'll send you a collection of texts.

        MR. McCARTY:  While we are on that one question, would you
care to have that made a part of the record?

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  I sure would, because I don't know if
anyone is going to be talking about this in terms of the hearing,
the decreased flow of water into estuarine systems, it's just as
damaging as pollution and just as damaging as fill to the estuarine
life system.

        MR. McCARTY:  I will get that into the record.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Congressman, I had the opportunity to sit
in on both of the hearings on the water rights within this Delta,
and of course, this matter of steady state conditions which you
referred to quite extensively here, was one thing that we are in
habit of taking under consideration and other things, as co-
ordinated operational agreement, because you just don't have the
transportation data.  You have the Federal Government involved in
exporting water from the same particular location, and the two
agencies, at the present time, are coming up with a coordinated
operational agreement that would have to be reconsidered when the
hearing is opened at one time, along with the water quality
portion and the salinity within this Delta, and all of those
matters are still to come, and we'll be hearing a lot on it
probably this coming July.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  Well, I hope so; you will surely be
hearing from me on it.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, I realize that.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  The reservations that I have, Mr.
Alexander, it's — I was at the October 21st hearing, and he —
Mr. Gianelli, one of the Directors, got a copy of the transcript,
the Peripheral Canal cannot be operated with any —

        MR. ALEXANDER:  In the session of November 14th agreement,
which is a 1700 figure?

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  Well, that's so,  and I suspect it's
so, you can understand my misgivings about any opportunity of going
to a — any agency of the State or commission of the State and
hoping for an adjudication of a resolution between a customer and
a non-customer.  And, as I said, the obligation to different water
customers does that.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  What I was trying to put out to you, that
hearing that was held in October is not the Water Rights Hearing.
The Water Rights Hearing was held prior to that particular time.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  Walt G. Norris's testimony was taken,
yes, but we did leave it for further consideration.  We left this
open as far as the water quality is concerned, but I did not
fight against Mr. Gianelli, he left it to one of an additional
outflow; he said an additional outflow approved on the November 19th
agreement is not permitted or possible.  That's what his testimony

        MR. ALEXANDER:  The terms and conditions that we're going
to have to operate under, as far as this, it will be set for
the — by the State Water Rights Board has not finally been
determined, and I think, just as you've testified here today, that
it's going to mean a continuing jurisdiction,  to see how these
things are going to work.

        Maybe this winter's low tide is not flushing, maybe you
have to put another month in there, and there's many questions to
be resolved, and I don't know where we can turn to in any place
in this world, or in the United States, and operate a system, an
estuarine system such as this to show any person.  I think it's
something that has to be worked on, sort of a trial basis? so all
the beneficial uses can be covered.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  I would concur totally in that state-
ment if you would qualify it by saying while you're trying, and
while you're erring, you'll err on the side of conservation, not
on the side of exporting.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, that's what I would hope.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  In other words, you would have flows
coming into the estuarine system that you — greater than you
think might reasonably be required; then, if you find you don't
need them, you can decrease it, rather than start out with
decreased flow, then find things may be irreversible.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Congressman, that is the way I view it.
At the present time, when you take the amount of water that's
available in this system and the amount that's going to be used

for the next 10 to 15 years, we have a surplus, of water,  in most
instances, all the way through, that can be worked back and forth?
but in the next 10 to 12 to 15 years, with all the resources and
everything and the demand not picking up until a later date, you
have an opportunity to do some of that.  That's why we maintain
in practically every one of our water rights decision this con-
tinuing jurisdiction.  And, this estuary here is one of the most
important, because it is the spot where all of the exporting is
being done, not only to Southern California, but to the central
part of the State.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  Well then, I would feel much more
comfortable if the words you were using were coining from Mr.
Gianelli's mouth.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Mr. Gianelli is working the same as your
Bureau of Reclamation; Mr. Gianelli is exporting water, in charge
of the State, and the only agent would be this — your State
Water Resources Control Board, we as both water rights and water
quality transportation.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  But, you make an assumption that I
am not willing to make a deal, and that — it's an independent
agent, I would venture a speculative guess that I will hope to be
able to be more definitive about that.

        The members of that Agency are heavily weighted to customer-
oriented and customer-conflict of interest; full membership, but
members on that Board who are adjudicating disputes between the
allocation of water resources in the State of California of their
allegiance, and their obligation to the water customers of the

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, of course, I would have to differ
with you, Congressman Waldie, I think that the members of the Board
are representing the people of the State as a whole, and all of the
beneficial uses of the water of the State, we hope.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  I would feel very comfortable if I
could accept that, and I have not yet, and I don't mean to be —

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I understand.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  I am going to present this thesis that
I've just mentioned to you in greater detail, Friday, before the
Commonwealth Club, and I would hope that I'm proven absolutely
wrong, and this Board to which you refer is independent, and that
the misgivings I have about giving that Board or any administrative
body in this State any jurisdiction over anything else to do with
water, that those misgivings are unfounded.

        I would be terribly alarmed if I had to go before your
Board and Mr. Gianelli.  Already, a resolution of the problem
facing this estuary; if they required the reversion of the water
from the Delta to resolve those problems, wouldn't you find that
to be a very difficult decision to make; if reversion — that you
don't deliver to Southern California according to your contract,
could you even break your contract?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, you're talking about the Department
of Water Resources; as far as the Water Resources control Board,
we have no contract with anyone, and having been a member of both
Water Rights Board and this new Board for about approximately
eight years, we have had no one in authority telling us how to
operate; and we are most independent.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  That you've been one of the most
independent and one of the most effective, I'm not able to say
that with equal certainty about some of your colleagues.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Of course, I'm the only one here.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  Thank you.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, we thank you for your statement.

        CONGRESSMAN WALDIE:  Anything more, Mr. Mccarty?

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you very much for taking your time
from what I'm sure is a very busy schedule.

        For our next speaker, we have Mr. John DeVito representing
the Contra Costa County Water District.

        Mr. DeVito.

        MR. JOHN E. DeVITO:  Mr. Alexander, Mr. Mccarty, Congressman
Waldie, Gentlemen:   I would like to read my statement, if I may,
and I may by your leave also depart from time to time as certain
thoughts occur to me that will be beneficial to your survey.

        The Contra Costa County Water District relies entirely on
water diverted from the rivers and sloughs which constitute the
Sacramento-San Joaquin estuarine system.  It is my purpose to first
acquaint you with the District's use of the estuarine system, and
secondly to comment generally on what we believe the future use of
the system should be and comment briefly on guidelines for develop-
ing a management system.

        District's Use of the Estuary — The District was formed
in 1936 to distribute water from the Contra Costa canal which was

built by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation as the first unit of the
Central Valley Project.  First deliveries began in 1940.  Present-
day deliveries total approximately 90,000 acre-feet per year and
represent the primary source of water for seven cities, many
industries and rural areas.  Exhibit A shows the extent of the
District's service area of 109,000 acres.  Assessed value is $649
million and population is crowding the 250,000 mark.  Deliveries
are expected to grow to 178,000 acre-feet per year, that's within
the next 10 to 12 years, as indicated by a Master Plan recently
submitted to the District by consultants, a copy of which has
been brought for insertion in the record.

        The source of supply for the Contra Costa Canal is Rock
Slough, one of a multitude of intertidal sloughs which together
make up the intricate Delta complex.  Rock Slough is approximately
75 water miles from the Golden Gate and is at the fresh-water end
of the salinity gradient which is presently prevented from intruding
harmful distances upstream into the rich agricultural and export
pool area of the Delta by releases from upstream storage projects.

        I would like to point out that the diversion from Rock
Slough, although initially intended for primarily agricultural
purposes or historically, will be used according to a separation
of about 90 percent or more municipal and industrial use, and 10
percent or less for agricultural use.

        Exhibit B attached lists historic annual diversions at Rock
Slough.  Exhibit C shows diversion water salinity concentrations
experienced in 1959, 1961 and 1966, and Exhibit D shows the avail-
ability or days per year that a given level of salinity was not
exceeded based on analysis of records dating back to 1945.  It is
of interest to note that water with a chloride ion concentration
less than 100 parts per million (the State Water Project's Delta
export quality objective for the average month is 110 parts per
million).  Now this concentration of 100 parts per million exists
65 percent of the time, or about 237 days in the average year.
Since over 90 percent of all deliveries are put to municipal and
industrial purposes, a higher availability average is desired.
Furthermore, although exceedance of the U. S. Public Health
Drinking Water Standard of 250 parts per million, that's in
chloride ions, has been relatively infrequent, it has happened
twice in the last 10 years; once for 28 days in 1959 reaching 347
parts per million and again in 1961 for 23 days reaching 286 parts
per million.  This whole thing, the Contra Costa Canal and allied
health service, in 1960-62, as part of the Kellogg investigation,
showed that as this water in the Contra Costa Canal System exceeded
100 parts per million, the water users experienced what your report
calls "penalty costs" that averaged three times the original cost
of the water; and individual uses, the average additional penalty
cost to treat that water through the industrial process, ranged

from 100.50 per acre feet to over $220 per acre feet, puts it for
every part per million of chloride ions existing on the coast for
some years.

        The District also derives water from the estuary at Mallard
Slough.  Now, I would like to concentrate on the estuary diversion
at Mallard Slough, an adjunct of the Sacramento River system just
south of Chipps Island, also the westerly end of the legislative-
described Delta.  Mallard Slough is approximately 46 water miles
from the Golden Gate.  The salinity gradient is extremely mobile
at Mallard with fresh water being available for varying periods
each winter and spring and high salinities normally reaching
3,500 parts per million each summer.  Diversions at Mallard Slough
which predate Rock Slough diversions, date back to 1930.  The
Mallard pumping facilities and water rights were acquired in 1961
by the District from a private water company serving the central
county area.  You asked for dollar indications, the best we can
determine, at this point in time, is it was well over a million
dollars for that particular facility.

        Exhibit E shows annual diversions at Mallard and Exhibit
F shows the days each year that salinities remained below 100
parts per million chloride ion concentration, the District's
limiting diversion criteria.  The overall average is about 142
days per year (39 percent of the time).

        The foregoing describes the District's use of estuarine
waters, it will be of interest for you to note that in addition,
some customers of the District in the municipal and industrial
class, all located upstream of Mallard Slough, also divert
estuarine water.  This water must be viewed in terms of quality
restrictions dictated by the use to which it is put.  Exhibit G
is a tabulation of these diversions.  Column  (1) shows diversions
of good quality water  (generally less than 100 to 150 parts per
million chloride ion concentration) for municipal and industrial
process uses.  Such water is available only on a seasonal basis.
Column (2) shows diversions for cooling purposes, the predominant
volume of which generally has no mineral quality restrictions and
is available year-around.

        Now, may I qualify at this point:  Our actual records
indicate that even though it isn't a major percentage of the
total amount of cooling water, there are cooling water restric-
tions or cooling water limits that are certainly germane, and are
of particular concern to individual industrial water users.  By
example,  we notice that some industrial cooling water uses cannot
exceed 500 parts per million in some cases; they can exceed 500
parts per million in some cases.  They can't exceed a thousand.

        The canneries for certain process purposes cannot exceed

a thousand parts per million.  This is something,  of course,  that
should be pointed out, even though it isn't a. majority of the total.

        Finally, it should be pointed out that aside from natural
rainfall the foregoing estuarine diversions represent essentially
the entire water supply for lands within the District.  Ground
water quality is poor and quantities derived from this source are
relatively small and can be neglected and there is no significant
surface water development of the relatively meager 15 inches of
annual District rainfall.  With this in mind, the dependency of
the lands and inhabitants within the Contra Costa county Water
District on the estuarine supply becomes abundantly clear.

        Future Use of the Estuary — The following comments are
generally limited to that portion of the estuarine system upstream
of Carquinez Straits.  I would like to add here that records
established by the old industrial association under the guidance
of the late Tom Carlson and Carl Shaddler, show that prior — at
one time the dividing line between salinity and fresh water was
the Carquinez Straits.  This by way, at the historical steps of
the marina seawater aquatic life on the seaside or west side of
the Carquinez Straits and freshwater activity on the upstream side.
~L think those records are available.

        The District has long recognized that water quality
standards should be set at levels sufficient to protect the environ-
ment  (both water and water related) for fish, waterfowl, recreation
and aesthetic needs.  Water quality needs of the rich farmlands of
the interior delta area must also be protected.  In the westerly
reaches of the Delta, the District has long agreed with the con-
cept that the protection of existing diversions for municipal and
industrial purposes is an economic question and must be balanced
against the next least costly alternative, namely replacement via
an overland export system extended from an area of assured quality,
and we've often referred to Section 100 of the Water Code in this
respect; and it has been pointed out canal water quality needs
improving.  The adverse effects of the 1959 and 1961's when summer
intrusions caused extremely high salinities must definitely be
avoided.  To overcome this deficiency  (and others I will not go
into at this time) the District in 1961 supported authorization
of the proposed Federal Kellogg Project which would import water
of good quality from the Tracy area in the south Delta.  This
same project could well serve to also convey replacement supplies.

        The concept that the District very definitely opposes is
that the economy of replacing existing diversions is decided upon
and longer term intrusions permitted without first authorizing
the very vehicle  (project) which makes the concept work.  So here
we stand.  Not only is Kellogg not authorized for its own merits
 (benefit/cost ratio excluding any replacement supply concept
allocations is 2.28/1.00) but further it has not even been sent

by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation on to Congress for consideration
and this after nine agonizingly  long years.  Under the Bureau of
Reclamation, it might be like 90 years, water years, and to our
years.  But, we checked with the Document Division this morning,
it's really eight years six months that we have been waiting for
this report.  The Bureau of Personnel tells me that this particular
preparation of a feasibility report breaks all records in terms
of length of time.

        My point then is this, fish, waterfowl, the recreationist,
sightseers, etc., must not be left the legacy of a polluted water
system and the environment must certainly be protected.  Delta
agriculture must also be protected.  In addition, existing western
Delta diversions requiring good quality water must be protected
until the projects which can wheel replacement water of good
quality are approved — already funded.

        The flier for this meeting also inquired as to management
and before closing, although having no specific organizational
recommendations at this time, I would like to comment briefly to
this point.  Implementation of standards and management of a
system that will protect beneficial estuarine users must recognize
several basic truths:

         (1)  The storehouse of knowledge regarding just what
standard will in fact accomplish a stated goal is limited and
although presently getting a lot of attention, it should be recog-
nized that any regulatory body must be equipped with professionals
well versed in the many and varied disciplines required, biolo-
gists, engineers, economists, recreation experts, etc.

         (2)  The need for continual updating and review of standards
as new knowledge is acquired is necessary and the mechanics for
accomplishing this should be worked out and readily available.

         (3)  The problems of estuarine environment are truly
regional in scope.  Agencies concerned with the lower bays cannot
divorce their thinking from what happens in upstream estuaries
and in the Delta and vice versa.

         (4)  The governmental agencies that can regulate parameters
having a significant effect on the system  (such as water flow)
must be required to cooperate to do their share to make the system

        I would like to add a fifth here on dollar values.  If I
can draw your attention to the table on Exhibit G — well, first,
let me go to Exhibit E which are our own historic annual diversions
from Mallard Slough.  And Mr. Alexander, Mr. Mccarty, we did not
put this into our presentation, because at this point in time, our

only requirement — preliminary costs are in the hands of our
financial consultant.  When such becomes available,  I would be happy
to submit it for the record.

        Let's take a look at Mallard Slough within this westerly
portion; dating back to 1926, you can see that we diverted water in
quantities depending upon the outflow at any year.

        If it's — if the outflow is high, then we divert more
water, but let's say that it's 1,000 acres per feet per year, which
has certainly occurred.

        Now, in the course of our negotiations of a replacement
supply with the parts of water received, we arrived at an avail-
ability of 122 days.  This is based on the figures that we were
able to divert that high quality water, not exceeding 100 parts
per million.  We also determined by our own records that our
costs to divert that by 3 million to a storage reservoir, was about

        We also know that other diversions upstream in processing
through the city of Antioch particularly having a much lower cost
in that they divert not more than 2,000 — I've had figures in
the area of about $1000 per acre foot.  So, let's take an average
of 3000 per acre foot for our discussion of it now.

        Where our water costs now, by way of direct diversion from
the river is about 490 or an average in the area of about $3,
bearing in mind that our contract with the Department is for a
ratio of only one third, the remainder, of course, has to be paid
for by the District currently.

        The replacement cost is three times that of the Department
allowance.  Let's say it another way, where we — the average cost
is $3.  We have to pay the Bureau of Reclamation $10 an acre foot.
Now, that's based on the water per acre of our rate of $10 per
acre foot.

        This year we exceeded the contract, and the rate is
doubled, it's $20 a foot.

        Now, our preliminary investigation shows that in the near
future, the water cost of the Contra Costa Water District, based
on a projection by the Bureau of both water supply and the many
facilities, is going to be on the order of $36 an acre foot.

        Now, on the basis of our current contract, the Department
of Water Resources will allow us one third of what you can sub-
tract, or $12 per acre foot, so our net cost will be $24 an acre
foot, which is eight times more.

Historical Water Use From Contra Costa Canal
Acre Feet


. 4,864
Source:  Contra Costa County Water District data.

                                 	-102-c-   fcA"—^

                                                                EXHIBIT D
>  "CO

°~  I
£r  CO
2  [S

g CO
co b
< 2
= 1
3 *
                                                                       UJ CO
                                                                       55 =
                                                                       "^ Z

                                                                       u- 3
                                                                       o §
                                                                       >5 U
                                                                       ^ co
                                                                       CO <
                                                                       Q >-
                                                                       UJ H
                                                                       CO 2
                                                                       CO —.

                                                                       ^ <
                                                                       ^ CO
                                                                       >: g
                                              A1INHVS ',,SH

                                                  Exhibit  E
                  MALLARD SLOU(H
                     Acre Feet
Year                               Quantity Diverted

1945                                   6,810
1946                                   8,280
1947                                   3,779
1948                                   5,490
1949                                   6,302
1950                                   7,350
1951                                  10,920
1952                                  10,595
1953                                   7,966
1954                                   6,567
1955                                   3,504
1956                                   7,138
1957                                   6,921
1958                                   7,486
1959                                   4,355
1960                                   3,349
1961                                   3,776
1962                                   9,106
1963                                   6,844
1964                                   2,788
1965                                  11,533
1966                                   1,881
1967                                   9,269.
1968                                   5,384

                                                                     Exhibit   F
             Historic Availability of Hood Quality* Tidal Water

                              at Mallard Slough
• 1937

•:•: |:
"*7I ."."
.'I . .


•. •.".•.•,". •.".".•..•,v-^-".
•> reco
: !>':'


• •

• ^


-d? clr
• 1-


. . • • •


- to W<

• • \

' '.'.'.'.
\ ]•]

>rld W»

• • • •.".

, : :•:•:
_•_ -•_•-



r II.)







:•••• f'J

H f
t) [
I E3
Water with choloride concentration
of mean tidal cycle conditions.
100 ppm as representative

                                                     Exhibit G


Municipal and
Process WaterH/
Industrial .
Cooling Water-'

a/  Exclusive of deliveries from Contra Costa Canal.

b/  High-quality water.

£/  No quality limitations.

d/  Estimated.

Source:  Contra Costa County Water District data.

        Gentlemen, it has been a pleasure, and I am happy to appear
here.  If you have any questions, we'd be glad to answer.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. DeVito.  Do you have any

        MR. ALEXANDER:  No, I don't believe I have any questions.

        MR. McCARTY:  Just one question, about your Exhibit B,
Mr. DeVito.  I notice you show a very significant increase in the
total diversion in the past year.  Is there any particular
explanation for that?  I also notice that you have a very low
diversion rate for Mallard Slough on Exhibit D, because you had a
dry cooling water year?

        MR. DeVITO:  Yes, Mr. McCarty.  I think, if you look at
the water correlation on Exhibit B as it moves up and down, is
certainly consistent with the Exhibit F which shows historic
availability at Mallard Slough.

        By example, to your question, 1968, the District's total
diversion at Rock Slough was 101,000 per acre feet simply because —
we call this a dry year.  It also required more availability
through the Contra Costa Canal System, and as you properly indi-
cated, this shows a lesser pumping availability at Mallard Slough.

        I think we can say it another way, that even though the
average availability from the offshore is about 30 to 35 percent
of high quality water, it varies from year to year; it is going
to be considerably more from the offshore.

        MR. McCARTY:  Okay.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I was wondering if — is this Master Plan
for Water Supply to be a part of the record?

        MR. DeVITO:  I would so ask, Mr. Alexander.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Do you want that identified for the record?

        MR. McCARTY:  Yes.  I should point out, the record is black
and white, there are some colored figures in the back, if you would
like — still like to have that part of the record?

        MR. DeVITO:  We recognize that, Mr. McCarty; I think black
and white will do justice to the report.

        As a matter of record, I'll read the record in the tran-
script:  Contra Costa Water District Master Plan for Water Supply,
March 19, 1968, Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Incorporated, Consulting
Engineers.  Thank you.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Very fine report.

        MR. McCARTY:  Our next speaker for this morning,  I would
like to call — we have three more speakers — perhaps we could
take — let's take a relatively short break,  let's make it 20
minutes, and we'll be back to hear the final speakers.

        (20-minute break)

        MR. McCARIYi  Gentlemen, we will begin our session again.

        Our next speaker is Dr. Carl W. Chen, representing Water
Resources Engineers, Incorporated.

        Dr. Chen.

        DR. CARL W. CEEN:  My name is Carl Chen.  I am an Associate
Engineer with Water Resources Engineers, Inc., located in Walnut
Creek, California.  I would like to take this opportunity to
express some thoughts about the emerging "systems approach" to the
problems of water quality management for estuaries.

        For the benefit of the audience, I would like first to
define the terminology of "systems" and "system analysis approach";
second, to illustrate why we need the systems approach to help
solve the water quality management problems of estuaries; and
third, how the system approach can be applied.

        A system is composed of many components that function
individually and yet interdependently.  For example, an estuary
may be considered as a system composed of rivers, sloughs, mud
flats, embayments, and a mouth serving as a connection with the
open sea.

        In this system, there exist various physical and chemical
constituents which create an environment, as well as the biota that
live in it.  It may not be obvious, but it should be fairly clear
that these components  (and others not mentioned) are dependent on
each other.  Thus the tidal fluctuation at the mouth of the
estuary affects the flow pattern of the whole estuary.  The chemical
constituents of water may affect the well-being of the biota and
the biota may in turn modify the water quality constituents.

        What is the systems approach then?  The systems approach
is simply an analytical procedure to identify components, to
quantify reactions taking place in each component, and to take an
integrated view of the overall phenomenon.  It is used to tie each
piece of information together to obtain a general comprehensive

        To illustrate why we need the approach, it is pertinent to
cite some of the problems that need to be solved.  For example, an
estuary may serve many uses.  Each use may need different quality
requirements which may be complementary to one another or in con-
flict.  The trade-offs and the accommodation of multiple uses to
maximize economic benefits can be evaluated by systems analysis
techniques called linear programming or dynamic programming.  Just
to give another example, many agencies have spent large sums of
money collecting countless bits of data for tides, currents,
weather conditions, physical and chemical qualities, plankton
counts, and so forth.  These data can be integrated and interpreted
together by another systems analysis technique called simulation.

        So much for the salesmanship for the system approach? how
do we go about doing it?  Simply stated, it requires a series of
modeling activities.  A hydrodynamic model must be developed first
to simulate the movements of water under various conditions of
tides and fresh water inflows.  A water quality model can then be
constructed to keep track of the transport of chemical constituents
entering the estuarial system.  An ecologic model follows to in-
clude and describe all the physical, chemical, and biological
interactions.  These three models may assist engineers to select.
water  quality management alternatives that may meet all the
specified or desired uses of our estuary.  On top of these, an
economic model may be created to find the optimal management
alternatives in terms of least cost or maximum net benefits.

        Water Resources Engineers, Inc. is a systems-oriented
firm.  Under the sponsorship of the FWPCA, the Department of Water
Resources, and other state agencies, we have developed and applied
hydrodynamic and water quality models for the San Francisco Bay-
Delta estuary.  Commissioned by the FWPCA, we have recently con-
structed an ecologic model.  The ecologic model is still in its
conceptual stage, but it will become operational in the near
future.  Our experience with the approach has been very encouraging.
We recommend that the systems analysis approach be used in the
contemplated comprehensive program for the preservation, study, use,
and development of estuaries of the nation.

        Thank you.
            t*». jr ^f "i •

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Dr. Chen.  Do you have any
        MR. ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Dr. Chen, have you had the oppor-
tunity of using that model any place anywhere else except on the
Delta here?

        DR. CHEN:  Yes.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Where have you used it?

        DR. CHEN:  We used it in the Elk Grove  Sloughs and we  used
it in the Pottsville Bay and I understand the FWPCA is using it in
the Columbian River System.

        The program has been designed so  that you can take in
various kinds of systems.  You don't have to reconstruct the whole
program, you just change the different conditions — different
regions, it's not as simple as such, though.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  No, I realize it's not that simple.   Have
you had an opportunity to make a pretty close check on all of the
inputs by other systems of another type?

        DR. CHEN:  Well, the bigger piece of work to be done is
for the San Francisco Bay-Delta system.  We are currently using
it for Elkhorn Slough.

        Well, I was one of them looking about the input for  the
San Francisco Bay-Delta system.  Now,  we  have another engineer
using — in the                  and he is looking very closely at
what kind of input is getting into the system,  and checking  it out;
and if they can be verified against the historical data.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Have you attempted to verify it against the
physical model at Sausalito?

        DR. CHEN:  We did, and they came  out much better than what
we thought.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Has the physical  model at Sausalito  been
extended upstream far enough so that it could cover all of your

        DR. CHEN:  They didn't as I understand, they tried to, but
they used a different kind of bunkering condition.  The main thing,
it may not vary as much as it looks, as — if you extend the Delta
system incorporated into the model, but they are building it as I

        MR. ALEXANDER:  They are still working on the experiment?

        DRo CHEN:  And, also they don't have the tidal change
capability in their model which we do have, and also, they don't
have the agricultural returnability, but they do have — they have
something — something they have we don't, but once we point out
that we should have it, we could incorporate it very easily.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Thank you.

        MR. McCARTY:  One last question, Dr. Chen.

        DR. CHEN:  Yes.

        MR. McCARTY:  Regarding this system analysis approach,  one
of the things that we are interested in seeking, as a part of
these public meetings, is an expression from people on ways of
getting at the values of estuaries, either in monetary terms or
aesthetic value, recreational values, personal values.  Have you
attempted or your firm attempted to look into these matters and
try to come up with material?

        DR. CHEN:  I am currently working on a program called —
entitled "Life Evaluation," and that so-called evaluation should
be called "Economic Evaluation," in which the major item is the
recreational — reclamation of wild rivers, and I have a feeling
that once we get that ecological model built, which will form the
basis, then on top of that, we will be able to build an economic
model to take care of beneficial — benefits which can be measured
for beneficial uses.

        Then, Dr. Macsono of our firm, he did a thesis on the
subject, to deal with the tangible benefit problem.  He uses some
kind of plan based on the fact that this location is particularly
unique; locally, regionally or state-wide, depending on this kind
of uniqueness, that will be contained in this intangible benefit.

        So, we are trying to develop methods at this time, we are
not trying to say it's worth one dollar or five dollars.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Dr. Chen.

        DR. CHEN:  Thank you.
L'. Ogilvie,
McCARTY:  Our next speaker this morning is Mr. Arthur
who is at present with the Santa Clara County Planning
        Mr. Ogilvie.

        MR. ARTHUR L. OGILVIE:  I have some slides here to show
soon after I start to address you, and we haven't had a chance to
adjust the projector, so I was wondering if we might do that at
this time.

        MR. McCARTY:  Fine.  Let me point out this one thing,  I
think I've mentioned it before, that everything in the transcript
comes out black and white and —

        MR. OGILVIE:  These slides that we are showing can be

reproduced, and we can furnish you black and white glasses if you
like, glosses of this, which in many instances have this quality
which in many instances will be very satisfactory for reproduction.

        MR. McCARTY:  If you would like those as a part of the
transcript, we can arrange it.

        MR. OGILVIE:  Yes, I'd like to have that, and we'll be able
to have these glosses to you before your trip.

        All right, may we have the lights out, please.

        Now, before we go into that portion of it, I'd like to give
a brief history leading up to what we're going to be showing.

        My name is Arthur L. Ogilvie, I'm a planner with the
Planning Department, Santa Clara County.

        A number of months ago, in our studies for review and
amendment to our General Plan, we had a number of subcommittees
that were looking at various aspects of our County; and three of
these subcommittees were as follows:  One was a Park-Recreation
and Open Space Committee; another committee was the Committee for
Bay Lands, and the third was an Agricultural Committee.  Of course,
I won't go into the other five committees because they're more or
less standard in regard to planning for the County.  In other words,
covering houses, et cetera.

        In our 1963 General Plan, the bay lands had certain land
uses indicated, and the area of Alviso was indicated for a wildlife
preserve.  So, we're going to focus — I'm going to focus this
morning on that area in relation to the subject that this hearing
is being held for, and that is in regard to pollution and water

        A couple of weeks ago, a San Francisco paper, the Sunday
Section, produced a very nice map, and it tells quite a bit of the
story about "Who Owns San Francisco Bay."  There are some minor
details, too, in the newspaper's presentation, it didn't produce
quite as well as it could have been in relation to some of the
estuaries and some of the creeks that are discharging into South
San Francisco Bay.  But, there is a definite relationship to the
problem because of the ownerships.

        To go back into history, in relation to Santa Clara County
and South San Francisco Bay; about fifty years ago, which would
make it around — oh, nearly 1900, man in that area was mainly in
the agricultural pursuit; and as a consequence, finally getting
into the type of agriculture and so forth, to find enough water
to be able to carry on, drilled wells for irrigation purposes,
and of course, as the orchards flourished, man moved in in

concentration, and communities developed, and along with the com-
munities, more demands for water.  And so, more wells were put
down to serve the municipalities, and to serve then ancillary
industry that was coming in to support this agricultural endeavor.
I rather doubt that there was any real expert in the country that
could visualize what this might cause, and as far as man's
environment is concerned, because he was indiscriminate rather
in drilling the wells and mine the water from the underground

        It's only been in the last — approximately 30 to 35 years
that we have had the technology or the technology has been avail-
able to us, and to see what this has done to us.

        And, of course, we have found, or .1 should say the
Department of the Interior, U.S.G.S., has found that there's been
a great subsidence in the northern portion of Santa Clara County,
and it extends into Alameda County and Southern San Mateo County;
and the reason for this, they state, is due to the mining of
the underground waters; and they have indicated that through their
surveys, that this subsidence is continuing.

        And so, therefore, I would like to now show the slides,
colored slides of their original work, and these maps — we based
this on available information from the U.S.G.S. Subsidence Office,
the Federal Building in Sacramento; and the man that is in charge
of this work is Mr. Poland.

        So, may we have the first slide, please.

        This shows the land subsidence in the three county areas
that I was speaking of.  The worst incident is in the San Jose
area, and as you go out to the Bay in the Alviso area, for
example, it shows approximately four feet (indicating).  Now, this
perhaps is not particularly alarming, but let's go back in history
when they first started making records in regard to this.

        U.S.G.S. had their maps showing the incidence starting in
1916.  I believe it's to 1967, where it shows eight feet in down-
town San Jose, the total from 1960 to '67 is nearly four feet.
And, in the Alviso area, it's something like seven feet.  And,
they have also prepared a map — another map, but to take your '34
to '67 map with a recent map, that we've come out with the '60 to
'67 map, and it shows that this subsidence is accelerating.

        In other words, from 1960 to  '67, the amount of subsidence
in the Alviso area has been nearly four feet of the seven feet,
and likewise in downtown San Jose, approximately half of the whole
in that brief span of years.

        Now, how does this affect us?  Well,  I'm going to go on
to another slide to show you graphically what this is doing to the
area; and this is compounding in part the problems as far as your
water pollution and so forth in the Bay.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Before you move to the next slide, is
your groundwater basin falling at about the same rate in — since

        MR. OGILVIE:  In cases, don't quote me; there are other
experts that you can get from the State or U.S.G.S., you can ask,
but apparently there's definitely a relation.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  But, I was under the impression that since
you put the reservoir in and replenishment, that you are able to
stop quite a bit of this subsidence?

        MR. OGILVIE:  Well, I quote from Mr. Fuller, the Chief
Engineer of the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District,
and he states that they do not.  See, any digressing in the sub-
sidence rate before the year 1980, based on their statistics on
their data —

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Is that because they'll be bringing in
some more water and prevent the overdraft?

        MR. OGILVIE:  This is also true, and also there is a prob-
lem that is coming to the attention of many people that it will
tend to be a particular — at least I have been told this by some
of their people that even though you percolate water to the south
part of the County, this virtual dam does not permit it to get
into the basin.  You might say, we've got two basins.  In the
north county basin, where this is happening, is not receiving this
water yet.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Thank you.

        MR. OGILVIE:  May we have the next slide, please.

        This is a slide taken of Alviso, and we're losing this
definitely.  (Indicating)  So, you can relate visually, this
building over on the right is the Alviso Yacht Club building, and
you notice the people with their motorcycles and people there
standing on old automobiles, upon the land there, and then you
get down to this launch on the left  (indicating), you walk down to
the bank on the launch, and this is at high tide  (indicating).

        Next slide, please.

        This was taken in October, in 1968; you walk out of the

same building, and you walk upstairs way to the top of the dike,
and there's the water  (indicating).

        So, here's your eight feet.  Now, in BCDC's working on a
page near the front of the book, just before you come to water-
related industry, we have a map showing the subsidence, and with
the written material in the report, they indicate — their
experts indicate that subsidence in this area,  (indicating) they
do not perceive any slowing down of the — of water, along with
underground — from the underground basins, until there is seven
more of the — of subsidence here  (indicating) .

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Mr. Ogilvie, could you mention that page
number and repeat the name of the report for the record?

        MR. OGILVIE:  They don't have the pages numbered, but this
is the new San Francisco Bay Plan Report, which was addressed to
the California Legislature, to the Governor, Ronald Reagan, and
members of the California Legislature; and the cover letter inside
is dated January 7, 1969.

        MR. McCARTY:  This is the report of the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission to the Governor?

        MR. OGILVIE:  This is the report of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission.

        MRo McCARTY:  Thank you.

        MR0 OGILVIE:  May we have the next picture, please.

        Now, going a little bit north to Alviso, the Station
Island, which is in Coyote Creek; this is actually in Alameda
County, and this is a little community in its heyday.  It's
called Drawbridge, and in its heyday, it was quite a place; and
special trains came out ot San Francisco, but particularly Oakland,
for the society people of that day to come out here, and these
were summer homes, second homes away from home  (indicating), and
they had their parties and their socials and they had weddings,
and probably there was a little gambling going on and plenty of
drinking.  And, in the hunting seasons, there was plush hunting
clubs; but due to subsidence, (indicating) you see this is the
type — this is how the buildings have degenerated where now they
can barely be used any time. (Indicating)  And, notice the white
lines on the side of the buildings, that's your line of high tide.

        Now, this building is unusable, so some of the people, to
try to save their buildings, have gone out, torn them down, taken
the material and rebuilt on stilts to try to have something that

they can go out on weekends to get away from the urban crowds.

        May we have the next picture, please.

        This is the way some of those homes looked in their prior
times (indicating) — very plush.  You notice,  now,  this building
on the right (indicating),  there up — right — there are two-by-
fours where they've tried to raise their building above the effects
of the tide.  Now, this is nice salt marsh in this area.

        May we have the next picture, please.

        This will give you a little more detail of your putting
them on stilts to get above high tide (indicating).

        One of the hydrologists of the BCDC stated that in addition
to the subsidence and high tide, we have a higher tide level here,
(indicating) because the subsidence has caused the area to drop,
and yet you go out into the Bay a little bit, and you've got a rim
in here (indicating); in other words, the Bay comes  in and then
you've got a basin.

        Now, in here (indicating), so that this creates a tidal
water, so therefore, the water in the area is higher than it would
have been if the area hadn't subsided.

        Next picture, please.

        This, I'm jumping to go to Mowry Slough in Alameda County,
just a little bit north of the Station Island and Drawbridge, and
this is a herd of harbor seals, that the Committee for South
San Francisco Bay Lands Planning Conservation and Natural Wildlife
Refuge discovered at the end of April of last year.   I want to re-
state the fact that there is some improvement in South San Francisco
Bay in the Bay pollution,  and this is due, mainly, to the fact that
we have sewage disposal plants, and we have these State agencies,
and we also have controls at the local level.

        This was an unpleasant accident — thing to find, because
the California Fish and Game people were not aware of this nursery—
herd of 400 harbor seals in this area.  And, one of the reasons
that this herd is here, is because the food supply has improved.
In other words, their food is fish.  They're indiscriminate,
probably,  about what kind they eat, but this does indicate that —
we like to compare it, we're on the virtual knife's edge.  Any
more pollution right at this time, we can drop back the way we
were 40 or 50 years ago.

        Forty or fifty years ago along with the subsidence matter
starting,  we had the pollution — concentration of pollution

starting, because raw sewage was being dumped into the Bay,
industrial waste was being dumped into the Bay and so forth.

        So, the wildlife was dissipated.  But, before the wildlife
would leave the area entirely, its food supply was destroyed.

        For example, at that time, the Bay received brief flocks
of black brant which is a sea goose, small sea goose, and the
reason that we do not have the black brant in the Bay, according
to Bill Anderson in the California Fish and Game Department, who
has been working with the committee, and who has been in contact
with me, is due to the fact that eelgrass wasn't present in the
Bay, it was destroyed through pollution.  So, as a consequence,
we have no black brant frequenting the Bay, except maybe an
injured one, and it comes down to rest before it tries to join its
brothers.  Also, the fish were destroyed.  Now, the fish are
beginning to come back to some extent, for example, the Striped
Bass are frequenting the South Bay; and the last two years, you've
been catching White Sturgeon in the Bay for the first time in 50

        However, in the case of the estuaries, Coyote Creek,
AlvisoSlough, Guadelupe River, Mowrey Slough, none of those have
Steelhead running any longer.  There's a very small group of
Steelhead along San Francisco Creek, which is the dividing line
between Santa Clara County and San Mateo County.

        We are hopeful,with the continuation of sewage pollution
controls and tightening on them where need be, that some of these
wildlife species can be reintroduced into the area.  And, this is
an indication, right here, with the harbor seals that the wildlife
can come back to some extent.

        Now, there are some species that will never get back.

        So that you can see what one of these harbor seals looks
like, we have a glossy picture here? I'll pass these around, and
I'd like to clarify the fact that many people miss — it's a
misnomer to call them seals in circuses and so forth, because
they're not, they're usually female sea lions, young sea lions,
and the difference between these and these harbor seals is that
they are a different species, and the reason that they frequent
places like this where there's food, and the most part, the
shores are rather flat,  and because of the construction of their
flippers; and they do not have the jointed flippers that the sea
lion has.  So, therefore, all these areas where they are, their
fall playground, and all they have — their flippers and they
draw themselves out onto this plush land and into grassy areas;
so this is a kind of habitat that is almost a must, first from
the fish, and secondly,  because of the type of shoreline that we

        Now, may we have the next slide,  please.

        Now, in this area also,  we have a habitat that is very
unique, and this is a rare California Clapper Rail,  and this is
the type of habitat that it frequents and where it mates.  It's
a salt marsh area, there is cordgrass for it; and I'm going to
refer to cordgrass in relation to silting and sedimentation.  The
Board has just included it in rare specimens, in the Department
of the interior's Red Book of Rare and Endangered Species.  The
next step is to make it undangered, and we'll have this some time
next year.  The new book is coming out by the Department of the
Interior, it will be included in it, it has lost almost all the
power of flight in evolution, so this habitat is a must for it,
and any encroachment on this habitat will cause it to become
extinct along the Bay.

        Next slide, please.

        These are black-neck stilts, and you notice that they are
wading in a very shallow — right next to the mudflats.

        Next picture, please.

        These are marble gotletts.  All these pictures, mind you,
have been taken in the South Bay Area.  What people don't realize
is that when you dredge the Bay to deepen the water, that you're
destroying the habitat needed by the shore and wading birds.
These birds here are waiting for the tide to go out so that the
mudflat is available for them for their feeding area.  So, in
dredging, it's fine, it does supply water surface which helps in
part to maintain our climate, but you've destroyed the wildlife
habitat area by doing so, and you've also destroyed the habitat
where the food for birds, fish,  molluscs, and mammals originate.
And, fortunately, the Department of the Interior had been
instructed under the Congressional bill,  what we call — sometimes
call the Dingwell Bill, studying the estuaries of the country,
and that study is due back on the President's desk on January 12,
1970.  We hope that that will point out a lot more of the real
values of ecology and ecological system,  and the need for preserving
these resources.

        Turn it off now, please.

        Now, I would like to state, briefly, going inland somewhat
where our silting and sedimentation originates; there is a new
film that has just been developed by the Department of Agriculture,
"Using Self-Preservation Called Mud."  That's the name of it, and
it deals with silting and sedimentation.   I have not had an
opportunity as yet to see the picture, but we have it on order for
our Department so we can view it.  But, the people that have

reviewed the film say it's absolutely shocking and frightening.
And, the reason that we have great amounts of silting and sedi-
mentation is because we have machines flattening the hills and
grading operations and so forth.  And so, we have a rain, and the
next thing that ends up is a trickle, and the next thing it goes
to the sources — it goes down to the water sources, and there it
goes to the creek, it crosses from there to the estuary, and ends
up in the Bay.  Then, we turn around, and for example, like at
Palo Alto Harbor; now the County is contracting for dredging so
that we can use that for recreational purposes, and they're going
to have to dredge that mud up at great expense to the taxpayers.

        Now, because BCDC and we in our Department are quite in
accord that this mud not be taken out by barges and dumped in the
Bay like it has in the past, we ask that they find a place that
is satisfactory for BCDC to be disposed of; so we're working it
out with the Public Works Department, and conferring with other
agencies to find suitable places to dispose of this.

        But, I'm pointing out the fact that man in his rush of
development and his rush to make money, does not take into con-
sideration the whole ecological system and what effects it can have
economically to him in the long run.  So, as far as back in the
watersheds,  and this is going to have to be studied, it's going
to have to be examined, and various agencies, jurisdictions,
local governments are going to have to be cooperating and working
closely together to study this and come up with rules and regu-
lations that we can slow this down.

        I had the question raised to me in Alameda County in
regards to this subsidence, I'm jumping around a little bit, but
this is such a tremendous subject, that I don't have the time to
cover all aspects; this subject could cover days, but I would like
to bring in bits and pieces that do have a bearing and interrelate.
I had the question asked of me in regards to subsidence, "Why is
it that certain parts of the Bay, that the subsidence is not notice-
able, that the mudflats and the marsh areas are relatively the same
elevation they were before the subsidence began?"  And I had this
backing on this conceived from hydraulic engineers, and so forth,
naturally I do have their professional advice; but what happens is
that this silt and sedimentation is coming down our streams, plus
they do give us problems.  Where we have recreation, it has a
tendency to fill those streams, and because of the discharge is
not once what it was, and that's mainly due to reservoirs and dams
upstream, but the water that does get through with this silt and
sedimentation, quite often comes in contact with the mud shores,
and particularly with the marsh grasses; and the marsh grasses
help greatly to screen out the silt and sedimentation, and they
drop in the grasses.

        So, nature is doing a better job in this respect than man,
and it's helping to clear up a great portion of the Bay, and also
the turgidity, to the point where the Bay can be more effective
in producing oxygen which helps man's environment,  and helps clean
up the pollution.

        The little animals, fish, molluscs, and what have you that
frequent and live in this area are great producers, and in turn
are great cleaner-uppers, if I can put it that way, of the water.
For example, myriad millions of mud snails help, they are filter
feeders, and they help  to clean up the pollution and help clean
our water.

        What I'm getting at is this:  That we need to do many
studies in relation to this, and I think that it's high time that
we took a very close and hard look at it, because our children,
those that are in school now and in college are suddenly going
to swarm in on us and accuse us of being traitors to our country,
because we haven't done a better job.  And, I'd hate to mention
why I made that statement as I do.  In this State,  this last
year, part of the education of legislature has passed legislation
whereby it's mandatory to teach nature in the public schools, pro-
viding the school has the funds and staff to do so.

        Santa Clara County started this program in the sixth grade
three years ago, and presently have 19,000 students in it.  In
addition to this being taught in classrooms, they have a summer
camp — not a summer camp but have a nature camp where they take
these students with the teachers, for a solid two weeks to teach

        Just the other day, San Jose State College's representative
was out before a group of the public, in connection with a purchase
at                 now               is in back of Los Angeles,
and it was the property of a Catholic School, but due to diffi-
culty, they closed it, and San Jose State wants to purchase that
property to establish a school of environmental studies with a
student body of 980 students to begin with, eventually 1200
students.  It will be a 4-year course of study.  They'll have their
professors, their instructors will be there, and they'll have very
little interchange with the parent school in downtown San Jose.

        I feel that these people are going to call us to task if
we do not — eventually they are going to call us to task if we
don't start doing a better job.

        One of the things I'd like to point out, in connection with
this, I think it's absolutely mandatory that we do everything in
our power to find the monies to start the studies.

        Now, in regard to ecological or environmental aspects,
particularly in relation to the old concept of cost benefits; it's
far antiquated and outdated, and it's time we relate this to our
environment and if the ultimate cost — the cost to the public for
many of these things that we do on short-term basis, and on that
note, I would like to thank you people and if there are questions,
I'd be happy to answer your questions.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  We might have one question or two before
you leave, Mr. Ogilvie.

        MR. OGILVIE:  Well, I'll be here.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  We will be up there at the meeting so we
can hear you.

        MR. McCARTY:  Go ahead.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I take it from your testimony, Mr. Ogilvie,
that you feel that the water quality problem is improving in the
North Bay to a certain degree?

        MR. OGILVIE:  I would say, perhaps North Bay.  I can't
speak specifically for the North Bay, but I surely can for the
South Bay, having worked closely with the habitat areas for the last
several years.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, I may have misquoted myself, but you
feel that it's improving in that particular area?

        MR. OGILVIE:  Yes, but I — in talking with people about
this, I say that we must not let down; we must forge ahead, and
we must be very vigilant to see that that does not regress.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  The other thought that comes to mind, with
this subsidence, are you having more of these salt marshes, is it
making more salt marshes and expanding the area over what it would
have been without the subsidence?

        MR. OGILVIE:  It's very difficult to tell on that basis;
I would say that it's possible.  Of course, with the salt ponds,
the diking facilities for salt ponds and so forth and other man
developments around the fringe of the Bay, and looking at the
area's salt ponds; they remove great vast areas of marsh.  So,  I
can't really equate an answer to your question.  It needs further

        MR. ALEXANDER:  One important question I don't think you've
touched on, is who do you feel should be the one that should manage
these estuaries, and how should that be set up?  You're coming into
a management program.

        MR. OGILVIE:  Well, 1 can only speak for our Department,  I
can't speak for our Commission or Board of Supervisors,  but many  of
us in our Department tend to feel that we need a form of regional
government, somewhat like the BCDC would be helpful, or one that
would be somewhat similar to replace it.

        Now, in relation to the area of Alviso, in regard to that,
having been shown previously, in the past year or so, wildlife
reserves, we look to the National Government, the Bureau of Fish
and Wildlife to do that; so we feel that perhaps between the State
and the Federal Government, perhaps a consortium.

        Now, this is my own opinion, between the State and Federal
Government, a consortium could be worked out, working with local
government and a system working together to do this.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Thank you very much.

        MR. McCARTY:  One last question, Mr. Ogilvie:  Since you
are with the Planning Commission —

        MR. OGILVIE:  Planning Department.

        MR. McCARTY:  Planning Department, I'm sorry.  Is your
Department looking forward, in the future, to any swimming areas
anywhere in the South Bay of Santa Clara County that comes in
contact with Bay waters?

        MR. OGILVIE:  We're conducting a study in our Department
under an urban assistance grant, our people call it a 701 Grant,
for parks, recreation and open space for the entire County, and at
the present we're doing — working with the cities; we're gathering
data and information in regard to this, and studies — what we have
existing, what the needs are for the future; and so, we're looking
at all these aspects, and it is not inconceivable that perhaps it's
to be done.

        This could be done now, that area immediately available to
Alviso, it's an old subdivision, a paper subdivision, where the
people purchased lots, and it reverted to the County and City
because of nonpayment of taxes.  They conceive of putting a park
and recreation in there, and perhaps a small wildlife preserve.
It's not very far from now; a County marina in Alviso, and it's
very possible that something like this could be worked out.  I
can't say at the moment; we have not — our report will not be due
for another — well, our time runs out toward the middle of this
coming year, 1969, and we're going to have to put in another year
for study and ask for another grant for another year.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Ogilvie.

        MR. OGILVIE:  Thank you.

        MR. MCCARTY:  I would like to call on our next speaker,
Mr. Hanford Eldh, who represents the Santa Clara County Fish and
Game Commission, he's the Chairman of that Commission.

        MR. HANFORD ELDH:  My name is Hanford Eldh, I'm Chairman of
the Santa Clara County Fish and Game Commission.

        This meeting was unbeknownst until early this morning.
Mr. Ogilvie called me, so I'm not prepared to speak for the County
Fish and Game Commission; not having had the time to clear it with
the rest of the Commission.  Any comments today would be strictly
as an individual citizen, as an individual.

        Apparently there were some comments made yesterday about
the pollution condition in our area in the South San Francisco Bay,
in the Alviso area.  I'm not prepared to speak on it as some of
the former speakers here, but I would like to make a few comments
in regard to a rather — pretty much by accident, a firsthand
report I had on water pollution, was a call from a friend on the
Police Department who informed me that "there's a green and red
chemical finding its way into the Guadalupe River."

        And so, on a Friday evening, on January the 10th, it had
rained off and on during the day and rather cloudy; but I did run
out to see it, and I did take a sample.  The creek, at the bridge,
at the Guadalupe Expressway, an Airport Boulevard, where the stones
were dumped into the creek, was like a green carpet across the
stream, and looking down the stream toward Alviso just as far as
you could see, it was as green as it could be.  The water above us
was just the normal color of the creek, a little muddy, but not
too bad.

        I tried to contact — I did contact the Fish and Game in
the area, and he was headed for San Francisco for a meeting of all
the State Fish and Game personnel, and so Saturday morning he did
come over and we went out to take a look at it, but the plant
before this apparently wasn't operating and it had rained; and we
decided to take it out — to ride out to Deacon's Landing, it was
the last weekend of duck season, but what we had in mind was
pollution, had come up rather suddenly; and there was a truck
parked, it was one of the trucks contracted to pump out septic
tanks.  And, we watched them finishing unloading his load.

        As he started driving away, we stopped him and talked with
him and asked him what he was doing and what he was dumping and
who he was with, and it turned out to be a contractor from the Bay
of South San Francisco, and he had customers, he said, all up and
down the Bay, and the stuff he had dumped in the Bay there in the

area, he dumped right into running water,  right into the Bay,  and
he said it came from a laundry in San Jose.  So, we doubled back to
this laundry and talked with the employer there, they confirmed
that this contractor had picked up a load approximately an hour
earlier, and we questioned them whether or not the city Health
Department had ever checked them.  He said, "yes," they're in there
quite frequently, every month, and every week, sometimes oftener.
They had been in there just a few days prior to this.

        And, from further questioning, we developed that the
inspector — Health Inspector advised them whether they were allowed
to pump into a sanitary sewer or not.  We asked them what became of
the stuff they were not allowed to pump into the sanitary sewer,
and he stated that we pay a contractor X number of dollars a month
to haul it out.

        MR. McCARTY:  Where does he put it?

        MR. ELDH:  You tell me.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Now, you caught him dumping this?

        MR. ELDH:  Yes.  We did take a sample of what — the solids
and the liquids, and we have that.  And, Monday morning we checked
with the City Public Works Department, and they referred me to the
people at the disposal plant.  They called me, they're aware that
this septic tank contractor had been operating in the area, but had
never been able to catch him they claimed, but it seemed to be
quite impossible to get any direct answers from who operates the
dumping, under what regulations, what they're allowed to accept
there.  We did find the samples that we originally picked up at
the bridge, at the Guadalupe creek, contained — well, I don't
have the information with me, but I remember one of them was cyanide,
2.4, and .05 was fatal to fish life.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Mr. Eldh, aren't these septic tank con-
tractors that are cleaning those out and hauling these chemicals
and other things, aren't they licensed under your County ordi-
nances ?

        MRo ELDH:  They're licensed, they have a city business
license is the only thing I've been able to find out, and I met
with the septic tank contractors, and they're — some are
legitimate fellows, and they called a meeting and I requested
them, at this meeting, as to what arrangements they had with the
City or the County to dump the stuff they haul out in the tanks,
and they haven't been able to make any arrangements with the City.
And, I asked them if there was any way of knowing any — can they
estimate the number of gallons they pump out of the tanks per
day; and after mumbling back and forth, the few at the meeting,
they decided a minimum of 30,000 gallons a day.

        So, I asked them what percent of those gallons would find
its way to the Bay; and the answer was every gallon of it.  There's
no place to go.

        And, I also talked to the Mayor a week ago yesterday, and
asked him if he was aware of the number of septic tanks in the Bay
Area, and he said, "no," he had no idea.  I asked him what happened
to the material that was pumped out of the tanks; he never gave it
a thought.  But, there are septic tank contractors who are very
cooperative, they know it's wrong, they know it's a bad thing to
do but they have no choice.  They can't do anything with the city,
and they dump, privately operated contractors dump — five to seven
dollars a load — and the dump operators tell them where to dump,
and I don't know; I spent a day with a dumper, and I was with him
when he uncovered stuff, pumped 1400 gallons onto his truck, rode
with him to the dump and the dump operator instructed him where to
dump it.  He opened a valve and emptied the tank and it ran right
into the Bay there.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Have you contacted Mr. Dierker who is the
Regional Quality Officer in this area?

        MR. ELDH:  No, I heard about him today.  I could have been
better prepared if I had been aware of the meeting.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, I would recommend that you do get in
touch with him, and I think probably — I've talked to Mr. Gribkoff,
and he will have him get in touch with you.

        I think there are County ordinances as to what — who can
be licensed, if they are not handling it correctly.

        MR. ELDH:  Well, the contractors want to cooperate, they
will put up — they'll put up a place to dump it legally, they
realize it, they only — it's the only place where you can dump.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, we'll certainly get in touch with
the Board.

        MR. ELDH:  I'll be glad to discuss it further with anyone
who is interested in this.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  Well, we appreciate the information, we
certainly will get to the right party — get to the bottom of

        MR. ELDH:   With the Department of Fish and Game's going
down taking samples, we found where these chemicals were coming
out of industrial plants, that five gallons, that five gallons
from the dump truck into the stream, and the five gallons that go

further upstream.  I have that information and I feel that we should
have a complete report on it, it's due now.

        MR. ALEXANDER;  Well, thank you.

        MR. MCCARTY:  Thank you, Mr. Eldh.

        Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to
make a statement at this time for the record?

        MR. ALEXANDER:  I would like to introduce Mr. Kerry Mulligan,
Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board.

        MR. McCARTY:  Do you have a final closing remark?

        MR. KERRY W. MULLIGAN:  No, I'm just visiting.

        MR. McCARTY:  I would like to repeat, again, that the
record will be held open until March 14 for any additional state-
ments that you would like to make.  The transcript should be
available within about three months from this date.

        I want to thank again all of the participants who partici-
pated here today and yesterday, and those in the audience.

        I, personally, have gained a large amount of new knowledge
as a result of these public meetings, and a better insight in the
State of California's unique problem with estuaries.

        I particularly want to thank the State of California, not
only for putting on this meeting, but for the assistance they
provided in providing State-produced films on the activity of
estuaries in the State of California, and for their official views
on what the management programs will be.

        I think with this I will call the meeting adjourned.

        MR. ALEXANDER:  It has been a real pleasure working with
you, Mr. Mccarty, and I want to assure you that the State Water
Control Board will continue to operate in the highest manner they
can in regard to the work they are doing.

        MR. McCARTY:  Thank you, I appreciate your assisting us.
The meeting is adjourned.




        ROOM 408
   WASHINGTON. D.C. 20515
      PHONE: 225-5511
      AREA CODE: 202
Congress of tijc ^ntteb &tate*
                                     March 10, 1969

       P.O. Box 864
       Civic CENTER
      PHONE: 687-1200
      AREA CODE: 415

      PHONE: 233-4425

         Mr.  Paul DeFalco
         Regional Director
         Pacific Southwest Region
         Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
         760  Market Street
         San  Francisco, California 94102

         Attn:  Mr. James C.  McCarty, Jr.,
                FWBCA Regional Estuarine Program Coordinator

         Dear Mr. DeFalco:

               I herewith submit additional material to augment my oral
         statement of February 19th, 1969, in  San Francisco at the public
         hearings on Estuarine Management.

               I should like  to add the enclosed article, "Effects of
         Decreased River Flow on Estuarine Ecology," by Professor B. J.  Copeland
         of the University of Texas.  I believe that Dr. Copeland's  findings
         are  most significant in light of the  possible adverse effect of the
         proposals of the State Water Plan to  divert a great amount  of the
         fresh water inflows to the San Francisco Bay - Delta Estuary System.

               I again would  like to express my appreciation for your courtesies
         during the February hearings.
                                           Sincerely yours,
                                                   R.  WALDIE
                                           United States Congressman
                                           Fourteenth District

          B. J. Copeland
  With rapidly expanding industriali-
zation  along  the  waterways of  the
world,  water usage lias become a legal
and  economic  problem.   The   phe-
nomenon of low Mow occurs naturally
in times  of drought  and many studies
during drought conditions have shown
thar the  effects of reduced river ilow
are  diverse  and  far-reaching.   The
practice of decreasing river Mow by the
installation of reservoirs  is frequently
followed  without consideration or prior
knowledge  of The effects downstream,
particularly in estuaries.
  Kstuarios   are important in many
ways.   Many  important   commercial
ami  sport lishes and invertebrates  use
estuaries during some stage  of their
development.  Estuaries probably  are
the greatest  producing areas accessible
to man for  available protein.  Many
people  use these waters for recreation,
and  industry uses   them  as  factory
sites because  water is  available  for
transportation, processing,  and waste
  As used  in  this   paper, the  word
"estuary"  means  a body  of water
between the mouth of a river and  the
sea.   Since  lagoons are  really "old
estuaries," the term estuary, as used
here,   includes  lagoons,  bays,  and

     Currents and Hydrography
  An intricate current system within
estuaries is  produced by  the  balance
of river discharge and the contribution
of the  sea.  With decreased river flow,

  B. J.  Copeland is Assistant Professor,  The
University of Texas, Institute of Marine  Sci-
ence, Fort Aransas, Texas.
 the  current  system  can be so 'altered
 that  shoaling  and  scouring  can  set
 up  completely  foreign  physical  con-
   The most  important  hydrobiological
 parameter is salinity.  Under normal
 conditions, salinity is variable in some
 estuaries.  Collier and Iledgpeth (1)
 showed  a direct  correlation  between
 river ilow and estuarinc salinity in
 Corpus  Christ!  Hay, Texas.   Tf river
 How  is  restricted by upstream reser-
 voirs, the salinity level in the receiving
 estuary  may increase to the detriment
 of estuai'iiu;  biological  communities.
   Closely connected  to river  ilow  is
 the'  maintenance of  natural inlets be-
 tween barrier islands, connecting estu-
 aries to  the  sea. Simmons and Hoese
((2)  suggested  the necessity  of river
 flow for  maintaining discharge through
 Cedar Bayou,  a natural  inlet on the
 Central Texas coast.  Lack of river flow
 during the early 1950's resulted in the
 closing of Cedar Bayou. Passes can be
 kept  open only at  great expense  if
 river flow is reduced below  the level
 required to maintain them. The passes
 are  important  passageways  for  fish
 and  invertebrates  between  nursery
 grounds  and feeding  areas   (2)  (3)
 (4)  (5)   (6)  (7).

          Oyster Production
   Oysters fluorish in a wide range of
 salinity,  and the production of oysters
 is exclusively estuarine.   Oyster  pro-
 duction  in  L962  amounted  to about
 $16,000,000   in  Chesapeake Bay  and
 $6,000,000 on the Gulf Coast.   Pro-
 duction by weight, was about the same,
 however, amounting  to 20 X  10°  and

November 1906
19 X 10" lb  (8.6 X 10° and  9.1 X 10s
kg) respectively (8).
  Under normal estuarinc conditions,
occasional  flushing with  fresh water
from  rivers  helps rid  oyster  popula-
tions of damaging parasites and elimi-
nates species that compete with oysters
for food  (9)  (10).    With  reduced
river flow, however, salinities may re-
main  near or above that of seawater
with the  result that damaging para-
sites and competing  species thrive.
  Wells  (11) reported a  decrease in
number of species  of  oyster parasites
and scavengers in the  Beaufort, N. C.,
area as salinity decreased.  The abund-
ance of boring  sponges, major oyster
parasites,  decreases  as  salinity  de-
creases (12) (13)  (14).  Most of the
boring  sponges in  the high  salinity
areas of Newport River, N.  C.,  were
killed  when  the salinity  was  lowered
during heavy  flooding of  the   river
  Dcrmocystidinm  marinum,  a  para-
sitic fungus, is  often  a serious threat
to oyster populations and may be con-
trolled  by  dilution with fresh water
(15)  (1G) (17)  (18)  (19)  (20)  (21)
and (many  others).   J). marinum is
common on  oysters  in moderate sa-
linities,  nearly  always absent in sa-
linities below  10-15   ppt,  and  only
occasionally  found in  salinities  ap-
proaching 35 ppt (18). Although the
average  salinities may be  similar in
various estuaries, areas with the great-
est fluctuation  in  freshwater inflow
(salinity  fluctuation)   have the  least
D.  marinum infestation.   A sudden
drop in salinity as a result of  flooding
with  fresh  water may be  enough to
check  the fungal growth.  Apparently
it is necessary that freshwater inflow
occur  in  spring to  check  the  infesta-
tion effectively.
  Another widespread  and  destructive
oyster  parasite  is  the  oyster   drill,
Thais  hacmastoma, \yhich also  is sensi-
tive to salinity  changes and is usually
eliminated by moderate to low salini-
ties (22).   The Atlantic  oyster drills,
         Urosalpinx and Eupleura, are some-
         times quite destructive to oysters (23).
         They, too,  are  controlled in moderate
         to low salinities and/or with periodic
         flushing with fresh water.
           Franklin (24), in a well-documented
         newspaper  article,  discussed the new,
         yet  unnamed,  oyster  disease  MSX.
         Apparently, MSX is limited to waters
         with  over 15 to 20 ppt salinity, thus
         controlled by freshwater contributions.
           In  spite  of the tremendous need for
         fresh water  by the  oyster industry,
         an over abundance will upset  the bal-
         ance.  Andrews ct al. (23)  reported
         oyster kills when the  salinity was low-
         ered  in the James River,  Ya.   Butler
         (26)  and Gunter  (27)  reported oyster
         kills over large areas of the Mississippi
         Sound during  floods  of  fresh water.
         However, if  flooding  occurs  for  only
         a short period, oysters are capable of
         remaining  closed .for  several days and
         avoiding the harmful  effects.
           Galtsoff  (10)  discussed  the decrease
         in  the  'oyster  population  of Texas
         bays  during the drought of the 19?0's.
         lie  suggested  that the resulting in-
         crease in  salinity in  coastal  waters
         during  that time  allowed the influx
         of  parasites  and diseases  and  the
         higher salinities  (above  40  ppt)  re-
         stricted  gonad development.   Surveys
         by  the Texas Parks and Wildlife  De-
         partment (28)  (29)  indicate  little or
         no  oyster harvest  in  Texas bays that
         receive  little fresh water.

            Commercially    important    shrimp
          (Peneidac)  are spawned  offshore  aud
         the young migrate into cstuarine nur-
         sery  grounds, generally as postlarvae,
         to  complete the  life  cycle.   There,
         \itilizing the higher  productivity  and
         abundant  dissolved organic  material,
         they  grow rapidly,   sometimes more
         than one millimeter  per  day.  Along
         the Gulf coast shrimp is the most valu-
         able of all fishery  products, amounting
         lo more  than $60  million  in 1962  (8).
           The entrance of postlarval penaeid

Vol. 33, Xo. 11
shrimp through the Aransas Pass  In-
let, Texas,  corresponds  to  high flow
of the rivers of the area  in spring and
fall  (Figure 1)  (30).   Undoubtedly,
this  coupling  of peak migration  and
increased   river  flow   (accomplished
through years, of natural selection) is
essential   for   the   propagation  of
penaied shrimp.
  Important fluxes occur in cstuarine
ecosystems during  the  high flows of
spring and fall,  including flows of
vitamins  and  other dissolved organic
compounds, nutrients, lowered salinity
by the addition  of fresh water,  and
flushing and mixing influences.  Burk-
holder and Burkhohier  (31) reported
a greater concentration of, vitamin  B12
in the mud and cstuarine waters of
Georgia  than  in  the   adjacent  sea-
water.  Starr and Sanders (32)  found
similar  results  in   other  areas,  and
  s 60-:

                          S O N D
  FIGURE 1.—Relative number of post-
larval penaeid shrimp entering  the bays,
and river flow of coastal rivers.  A. River
flow for  Guadalupe River near  Victoria,
Tex.; 10-yr avg 1953-1962; B. River flow
for Neuse River, near Kingston,  N. C.;
10-yr avg 1955-1564; C.  postlarval Pe-
naeus aztecus and P. duorarum entering
Texas bays through the Aransas Pass In-
let  (30) ; D. postlarval P.  aztecus and P.
duorarum entering the Brunswick-Onslow
bay area of North Carolina (59).
            postulated  that productivity  of  the
            nearshore  sea  was  greatly dependent
            on suspended*solids brought into the
            estuary by river flow.  In attempts at
            raising shrimp from the egg to juve-
            nile stage in  laboratory experiments,
            it  was found   that  it was necessary
            to  add vitamin B12  to  the  seawater
            aquarium, according to a personal com-
            munication from the Bureau of Com-
            mercial Fisheries, Galveston, Texas.
              Guntcr  (33) found  that postlarval
            penaeid shrimp were most abundant in
            waters of moderate  salinities, although
            other features  were  the same.  At least
            2 species of Pcnams are  hypoosmotic
            to  seawater  and hyporosmotic  to low-
            salinity waters, with isotonicity occur-
            ring between 25 and 30 ppt (34).  At
            lowered   temperatures,  however,  the
            ability to  regulate  osmosis is slightly
            impaired, which may account for move-
            ment to deeper (and more saline) wa-
              Gnnter and Tlildebrand  (35)  showed
            a correlation between  catch  of white
            shrimp on-the  Texas eoast and average
            rainfall  for  the state.   Their correla-
            tion coefficients were significant to the
            one-percent level when rainfall of the
            two previous years was correlated with
            an annual  catch.    This  method  of
            analysis was considered valid since the
            reproductive cycle  of shrimp  is  one
            year  or more,  large  bodies  of water
            change their salinity slowly, and  dry
            land absorbs more water (less runoff)
            following droughts.
              A plot of  shrimp  catch  and average
            rainfall for Texas is shown in  Figure
            2.  An increase or decrease in rainfa/1
            is followed by similar fluctuations in
            shrimp catch,  generally  after  a two-
            year period. After the drought during
            the early  1950 's,  white shrimp popu-
            lations never fully  recovered, in  spite
            of technological  advances  and  in-
            creased fishing effort.  Presumably, the
            addition of several reservoirs in Texas
            during this time prevented river run-
            off from approaching the level  of pre-
            vious years.

November 1PGG

 _. |

 I I 1°'
                                      f-20  O
                                                                   — 10
  FIGURE 2.—Annual shrimp catch and average rainfall for Texas, 1927-1964. A.
Avg rainfall for Texas,  1927-1952 (35); B. annual catch of  white shrimp  (.Penaeus
setiferus)  from Texas waters,  1927-1952  (35); C. avg rainfall for Texas, 1953-1954
(U. S. Weather Bureau,  Climatological Data, Annual Summary, Vol. 58-70) : D. An-
nual catch of white shrimp {P. setiferus") from Texas waters, 1956-1954 (from U. S.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Gulf Coast  Landings,  1956-1964).   E. annual catch
of brown shrimp (P. azfecus) from Texas waters, 1956-1964 (from U. S. Bureau of
Commercial  Fisheries, Gulf Coast Landings,  1956-1964).
  Gunter (36) reported a general de-
cline of white shrimp along the Texas
coast and  suggested that  it  be at-
tributed to  the  drought.  He further
postulated  that   the appearance  of
larger   white  shrimp populations  in
Galvcston Bay and smaller populations
in the bays to the south be  attributed
to the decrease in freshwater contribu-
tion to  Texas bays in a southerly 'di-

              Blue Crab
  The blue  crab  (Callincctcs sp.) fish-
eries  ranked  sixth  in  value  in the
United  States, with a  value of $1.5
million .on the Gulf coast in 1962 (8).
The life cycle of  blue crabs is closely
connected to  estuaries,  and  estuarinc
ecology is a vital factor  in the mainte-
nance of a continuous crab fishery.
  There have been pronounced fluctu-
ations in  crab production through the
years,  according  to TJ.  S.  Fisheries
statistics. There  is a direct correlation
between crab reproduction and the salt
content of estuarine waters (37). The
optimum range of salinity for hatching
         of blue crab eggs was between  23 and
         28 ppt.  Hoese (38) noted a decrease
         in  the crab  population in  Mesquite
         Bay, Texas, during the Texas drought,
         when salinities were  greater than  that
         of seawater.  After the drought was
         broken and salinities were  moderately
         low, the blue crab population increased
         to its  normal level.

                  Primary Production
           Estuaries are  among  the most  pro-
         ductive ecosystems known  (39).   The
         maintenance  of  high productivity in
         estuaries is due to the "nutrient trap''
         created by the mixing of river waters
         with ocean waters.  The inflow of nu-
         trient  sulfates, carbonates, phosphorus,
         and  nitrogenous  compounds via rivers
         contributes greatly to   estuarine  pro-
           Considerable   amounts  of  organic
         detritus are  brought into the estuary
         from adjacent marshes  and from up-
         stream (-10).  Detritus is the  principal
         food   of  many  estuarine   organisms
         (39).  This material is decomposed by
         bacteria  and  fungi, releasing  large

        Xo, 11
amounts of organic and inorganic sub-
stances which  arc absorbed  by estu-
iiriiii1 organisms.
   Kstuarino phytoplankloii growth is
related  to  terrigenous  nutrients  in
1'aiuxent Kiver and Chesapeake  Bay
region  (41).    Plankton  blooms  oc-
curred just after peak flows down the
Pj.luxont.   Similarly, nutrient concen-
trations wore higher following ihe peak
river flow  and  prior to the  plankton
blooms.  IIutnor and  1'rovasoli  (-I-),
in llu'ir review ol'  research  in  algal
nutrition, have verified that, abundant
growth  of  marine  algae  requires vita-
mins  and nutrients in greater ooneon-
iration  tluui those found in  ordinary
  Estuaries in the .southeastern United
States are   more near  the
mouths of  contributing  rivers   (43)
(44)   (4~i]   (4(i).   It  is   not clear,
however, whether  higher  productivity
is because of the Contribution  oi' rivers
or is beeatiso the  greater  mixing re-
generates nutrients  in that area.
  On the other hand, aecumulated  nu-
trients tend to be  flushed ont of estu-
arine areas  receiving large  amounts
of iiood waters of low nutrient concen-
tration.  Such  iloods  also  kill many
of the larger  organisms so that their
stored nutrients also are lost  (38).
  The productivity of Texas  estuaries
was lower  just after heavy floods fol-
lowing prolonged droughts  (47)  (48).
During times of normal river discharge,
however, the  algal  productivity  was
higher  than that   in  most  estuarine
areas.   Texas estuaries are unique in
that  they are very shallow and have
minimal    tidal   fluctuations;   thus,
freshwater  flow  is  important in mix-
ing processes.

         General Discussion
  The influx of fresh water is one of
the principal sources of  dissolved nu-
trients in estuaries.   The relationship
of growth  in estuarine  phytoplankton
to terrigenous  nutrients is shown by
the increase following periods  of heavy
            rainfall and runoff.  Organic, materials,
            which  arc decomposed by bacteria and
            fungi  to release  large amounts of or-
            ganic  and  inorganic  substances  that
            are  absorbed  by  estuarine  organisms
            via  the aquatic medium, are brought
            into the estuaries by river inflow (40).
              Estuaries  that  have  proved to  be
            important   nursery  areas   possess   a
            well-defined salinity gradient between
            river mouth and tidal pass,  aeeomodat-
            ing  a  large variety of .species.   River
            inflow  maintains the salinity gradient
            to a large extent and  without it  the
            entire  estuary  could become  hyper-
            saline, as in the Texas Laguna Madrc.
            On  the other  hand, too much fresh-
            water  inflow   may  cause  the  entire
            estuary to  become  fresh or  near-fresh
            (Sabine Lake,  in cast Texas) and  de-
            stroy the .salinity gradient.
              The  estuarine  systems of Texas  lie
            in a broad  arc of approximately 375
            miles  (000  km)  and  pass  through  a
            variety of  climatic  regions, ranging
            from almost  fresh  water  in Sabine
            Lake  to  liypersalinc water  in  the
            Laguna Madre.  Characteristics of  the
            five  estuaries  other  than Sabine Lake
            and  Laguna Jladre  show  the  effects
            of   freshwater  contributions.  Since
            1959, the average  annual  freshwater
            contribution to  these   estuaries  has
            been  20.5   acre-ft   per  surface acre
            (fi'2.5 X 103  cu  m/ha)  for  Galveston
           Bay, 4.4 (13.4 x 103) for  Matagorda
           Bay, 11.5  (35.0 X  103)  for San  An-
           tonio Bay, 1.4 (4.3 X 103) for Aransas
           Bay, and 1.9  (5.8  X 103) for Corpus
            Christi  Bay.    The  large   inflow   in
            Galveston and San  Antonio  Bays, plus
            rainfall, has contributed  to  the main-
            tenance  of   thousands  of   acres   of
            marshes and bayous that provide habi-
            tat for the young of many  important
              Galveston Bay has continually pro-
           duced  more oysters than other Texas
           bays, presumably because of the more
            favorable freshwater conditions.   The
            San  Antonio Bay system is the only
           other bay approaching Galveston Bay

                                 November 10CG
in producing oyster reefs.  Matagorda,
Aransas, and Corpus Christ! Bays pro-
duce few or  no  oysters at the present
time  (27) (28).   Oyster production
corresponds very closely to the amount
of fresh water received by eaeh estu-
  Blue  crab  production  was highest
in the Galveston and San  Antonio Bay
areas, and lowest in the bays  receiving
the least amount of  fresh water (49).
  Shrimp are the most important fish-
ery product  on  the Texas coast.  Gal-
veston and Matagorda  Bay support the
largest shrimp populations and Corpus
Christi   Bay  the  smallest.   White
shrimp   are  now almost nonexistent
in Aransas and  Corpus  Christi Bays
(receiving very  little fresh  water),
where  in years  past they were quite
abundant  (33)  (50)  (51).
   The data  available   for comparison/
of  freshwater input  and commercial
fishery output are scant.  However, in
Texas, where freshwater  input  is at a
critical level  in  most  estuarine  areas,
         some   startling   conclusions  can  be
         drawn.  The minimum freshwater con-
         tribution  required  to  maintain  the
         present  commercial   fishery  is   not
         reached in some years in Matagorda,
         Aransas,  and   Corpus  Christi  Bays
         (Figure  3).   In  Galveston and San
         Antonio Bays,  larger  commercial fish-
         ery yields have  been  harvested during
         years  of  intermediate  or below-aver-
         age freshwater  input.
           The data presented in Figure 3 do
         not complete the real picture. Perhaps
         more  important than  the  total com-
         mercial fisheries output is  the change
         in species  composition that  makes up
         the total.   During the year following
         an  above-average  freshwater  input,
         shrimp and oysters make up a larger
         percentage of the  total.  These  prod-
         ucts  are  more  valuable economically
         than  are fish products, which make up
         a larger percentage  of  the  total dur-
         ing years of below-average  freshwater
           Many  fish  species  whose juveniles
          FIGURE 3.—Commercial fisheries products  vs. annual tributary
        freshwater inflow for Texas bays. 1959-1964.  One year's freshwater
        contribution was plotted  against the following  year's commercial
        harvest.   Solid lines  indicate trends only.  Data  on  annual commer-
        cial fishery yields were obtained from the  Bureau of Commercial
        Fisheries, Biological Laboratories, Galveston, Texas.  Data on trib-
        utary freshwater contribution to  each bay were  obtained from the
        Texas Water Commission.

 Vol. SS, Xo. It
reside iu  U)\v-s;ilinit.y waters  depend
on estuaries for the completion  of their
life cycles ^.VJ)  (53).  Freshwater in-
put  is  important  to  the propagation
of iishes  because  of  its salinity  con-
  Many  of the same  effects  that have
been  observed  iu  North   American
estuaries  have been  observed  in estu-
aries  in other areas.   In  the  Si. Lucia
esluary  system  on the  east  coast  of
South Africa, serious silting  and vari-
ations in  rainfall, along with man's
increasing demand for water,  has af-
fected the salinity  gradient (54)  (55).
Most,  of  the formerly rich fauna was
lost because of the  practices of  civili/a-
tion.   On the other  hand,  Kichard's
Kay,  just 3(> miles (58 km) south, has
not suffered the  effects seen  so clearly
in the St.  Lucia system (5(i).  Pre-
sumably,  this  is because  the  river  flow
into   Kiehard's  Bay  has   not  been
changed  by man  and his  enterprises.
  As  shown  by  several  studies   in
Kussia, the regulation of  flow of rivers
by the construction of dams led to  a
considerable accumulation  of nutrient
salts  in reservoirs  and to a  sharp re-
duction  in the  amounts of nutrient.
salts  flowing  to  the estuaries (57).
Following  the   construction  of  the
Tsimliansk hydroelectric  dam,  the bio-
mass  of the phytoplankton in  the Sea
of Azov  was reduced  by  2 to 3 times,
and  the  zooplankton  from about 600
mg/cu m to about  50 mg/cu  in.  Ulti-
mately,  this had an  adverse  effect on
the feeding  conditions  of fishes  and
their  populations.
  An  important   question  regarding
low river flow is whether  the  loss of
river  input and the  resulting higher
salinities  actually  result in  lessened
productivity in the estuary or simply
in changes in the productivity chan-
nels.  Galtsoff  (10) reported  a  general
change in the  species  of oysters in bays
of the central Texas  coast as salinities
increased during the drought of the
early 1950's.    With  the increase in
salinity there was a  gradual replace-
            ment of Crassostrca'vlrginica, the com-
            mercial  oyster,  by  Ostrca cqucstris,
            the noncommercial  oyster.   In  1952
            over half of the  young oysters (spat)
            were  0.  cqncslris,  whereas  in years
            of normal salinity the reefs were com-
            prised  almost entirely of C. viryinica.
            Gunler (58) has  discussed this  subject
            and concluded that salinity and fresh-
            water inflow are  important factors in
            limiting  the  species  composition  of
              As has  been shown in  the previous
            discussion, freshwater  input to  estu-
            aries is an important factor.  Without
            it, estuaries become hypcrsalinc  and
            species  composition  can  be   altered
            drastically.    Witli   continuation  of
            man's  activities  in  allowing  less  and
            less  fresh  water  downstream  to  the
            estuary,  man may  have  to pave the
            estuarinc areas and  sell them for  real


              The  author acknowledges the court-
            esy of  C.  II. Chapman  and  II.  A.
            Dieuer 'of  the  Bureau  of  Commercial
            Fisheries  and  of F. Masch  and  C.
            Urban  of the Texas Water Commission
            in permitting the use of data included
            in Figure 3.

            1. Collier, A., and Hedgpeth, J. W., "An In-
                 troduction  to the  Hydrography  of
                 Tidal Waters  of  Texas."  Publ. Inst.
                 Marine Sci.  Univ. Texas,  1, 2, 121
            2. Simmons, E. G., and Iloese, H. D., '' Stud-
                 ies  on  the  Hydrography  and  Fish
                 Migration of  Cedar Bayou,  a  Natural
                 Tidal  Inlet  on  the Central Texas
                 Const."   Publ.  Inst.  Marine  Sci.
                 Univ. Texas, 6, 5G (1959).
            3. Copeland, B. J.,  "Fauna of the  Aransas
                 Pass Inlet, Texas.   I.  Emigration as
                 Shown  by Tide  Trap  Collections."
                 Publ.  Inst. Marine Sci. Univ. Texas,.
                 10, 9  (1905).
            4. Daugherty, F. Jr., "The  Blue Crab  In-
                 vestigation, 1949-50."    Texas  Jour.
                 Sci., 4, 77 (1952).
            5. Iloese, II. D., "The Case of the Pass."
                 Texas Game Fish., 16 (C), 18 and 30

                                    JOURNAL Wl'CF
                                                                           November  1900
 (). Reid,  G. K., Jr.,  "A Summer  Study  of    20.
      the Biology and Ecology of East Hay,
      Texas."   Texas  Jour.  Sci.,  7.  310
       (1955):                         '         21.
 7. Reid,  G. K., Jr.,  "Biological  and Ilydro-
      graphic  Adjustment  in a Disturbed
      Gulf    Coast    Estuary."   Limnol.
      Oceanogr., 2,  198  (1957).
 8. IT.   S.   Fish   and   Wildlife   Service,    22.
      "United  States Fisheries."    Annual
      Summary, Bureau  of Commercial Fish-
      eries,  Commercial  Fisheries Statistics,    23,
      No. 3471.
 9. Collier,  A., Ray, S. M., Magnitzky, A. W.,
      and Bell, J. O., "Effect of  Dissolved
      Organic  Substances   on   Oysters.''
      Fishery  Bull.,  IT.  g. Fish and Wild-    24.
      life Scrv., 54,  1G7  (1953).
10. Galtsoff, P. S.,  "The American  Oyster virginica Ginelin."   Fish.
      Bull., U. S. Fish  and  Wildlife Serv.,
      64, 1  (19G4).
11. Wells, II.  W.,  "The  Fauna of  Oyster
      Beds, with Special  Reference to  the
      Salinity Factor."   Ecol. Monogr.,  31,
      239  (1961).
12. Hopkins,  S. II.,  "Notes  on  the Boring
      Sponges in Gulf Coast Estuaries and
      Their Relation  to Salinity."   Hull.
      Marine Sci. Gulf Caribb., 6,.44 (1950).
13. Hopkins, S. II.,  "Distribution of Species
      of  Cliona  (Boring  Sponge)   on  the
      Eastern Shore of Virginia in Relation
      to  Salinity."   Chesapeake  Sci.,  3, 121
       (1962).                                  2g
14. Wells, II.  W., "Boring  Sponges  (Clio-
      nidne)  of Newport River, North Caro-
      lina."  Jour. Jilislia Mitchell Sri. Soc.,
      75, 1GS  (1959).
15. Andrews, J. D., "Notes on Fungus Para-
      sites  of  Bivalve  Mollusks in  Cliesa-    09
      peakc Bay."    Troc.  Nail  Shellfish.
      Assn., 45, 157  (1955).
1G. Andrews,  J.  D.,   and Ilcwatt,  W.  G.,
      "Oyster Mortality Studies  in Virginia.
      II. The  Fungus  Disease  Caused  by    30.
      Dermocyslidium marimim  in  Oysters
      of  Chesapeake  Bay."   Ecol. Afonogr.,
      27, 1 (1957).
17. Hcwatt,  W. G.,  and  Andrews,  J.  D.,    31.
      "Oyster Mortality Studies  in Virginia.
      T.  Mortalities  in Oysters in  Trays  nt
      Gloucester Point, York River."  Texas
      Jour.  Sci.,  G,  121  (1954).
18. Hoese,  II.  D.,   "Absence   of   Dermo-    32,
      cystidimn warinum  at  Port  Arausas,
      Texas,  with  Notes  on  nn  Apparent
      Inhibitor."  Texas Jour.  Sci.,  15, 98
      (3903).                                  33.
19. Mackin,   J.  G.,  " Histopathology of In-
      fection   of    Crassostrca    viri/inica
      (Gmelin) by Vcrmoeysl'idiiim marinvm
      Mackin, Owen,  and Collier."   Bull.
      Mar.  Sci. Gulf Caribb.,  1,  72 (1951).
Mackin, J. G., "Dcrmocytstidium wnrinum
   and Salinity."  Pro<:  jYij.'f.  SJirlljM,.
   Asm*., 46, ilG  (1U:V>).
Mackin,  J. G.,  "Oyster Disease  Caused
   by llermocystijnnn marinum and Other
   Microorganisms in  Louisiana.''  J'liiil. Marine Sci.   U/'ii'. Tems. 7. 132
Butler,  P.  A.,   "The  Southern  Oyster
   Drill."   1'roc. .Va(f.  Sltellfah, Ai-sn..,
   44,  G7  (1953).
Carriker,  M.  R.,  "Critical   Review  of
   Biology and  Control of Oyster Drills
   Urosulpinx and Eupleura."  Spec. Sci.
   Rept.  U.  S.  Fish  and Wildlife  Serv.
   148,  1  (1955).
Franklin, B. A.,  "Once-Plentiful Eastern
   Oyster Has Become Victim of  Drought
   and  Disease."     The  AT.  1".  Times
   (October 31,  19G5).
Andrews, J. D.,  Haven,  D.,  and  Quayle,
   D. B., "Fresh-Water  Kill of  Oysters
   (Ci'assostrea virtjinica) in James River,
   Virginia,  195S."    Froc.  Sail. Shell-
   fish. Assn., 49, 29  (1959).
Butler,  P.  A.,  "Effect  of  Floothvaters
   on  Oysters  in  Mississippi  Sound in
   1950."   Res.  Rept. U. S. Fish  and
   Wildlife  Serv. 31,  T (19321.
Gunter,  G.,  "The  Relationship  of the
   Bonnet  Carre  Spillway  to  Oyster  Beds
   in  Mississippi Sound and  the  'Louisi-
   ana  Marsh',  with  a  Report   on the
   11)50  Opening."    Publ. 7/i.sf.  Marine
   Sei.   Unir. Te.ias,  3, 1,  17 (1953).
Ileffernan, T. L., "Computation, Analy-
   sis  and  Preparation  of  Coastwide
   Oyster  Population  Data."    Marine
   Fisheries Projects  Reports  for 1901—
   C2,  Texas  Game  and  Fish   Comtn.,
   Austin,  Texas  (mimeo).
Hofstetter,  R.,  "A  Summary  of Oyster
   Studies   along  the  Texas   Const."
   Coastal  Fisheries Projects  Reports for
   19G3,  Texas Parks  and Wildlife Dcpt..
   Austin,  Texas, 103  (mimeo).
Copeland,  B.  J.,  and  Truitt.  M.. V.,
   "Fauna  of the  Aransas  Pass Inlet,
   Texas.   IT.   Penaoid  Posilarvne."
   Tcxns Jovr. Sci.,  18, 03 (19GO).
Bnrkholder, P. 1?., and Bnrkhohler, L. M.,
   "Vitamin B,L,  in Suspended Solids and
   Marsh  Muds Collec'.e.'. along the Coast
   of Georgia."   J^iiiuioL   Ocennoff. 1,
   202 (195G).
Starr,  T.  J., and Sanders,  F.,  "Some
   Ecological  Aspects of  Vitamin  B,_.-
   active Substances." Texas Hcpt. Jiiol.
   Me/1.,  17, 49  (1959).
Gunter, G., "Seasonal Population  Changes
   and Distributions   as  Related  to Sa-
   linity, of Certain Invertebrates of the
   Texas Coast,  [ncluding the Commercial
   Shi-imp."  ' r«?)/.   Jnxt. Marine   Sci.
   Univ.  Texas,  1, 2,  7 (1950).

 Vol. 3S, Xo.  11.
34. Williams, A. B.,  "Tlio Influence  of Tem-
       perature on Osmotic Regulation in Two
       Specie*  of  Kstnarimi  Shrimps   (Ven-
       (.-.'us)."  liiol. Hull. Marine  Hinl. Lali.,
       irle,  119,  filiO  (IlliiO).
;i,"i. tinnier, t!., ami  Ihldel'iraml, II. II., "Tin-
       liVI.-iliuii of Tola! li'ainfall of ilio HI a ID
       :iiiil  l':iii'li  of   llui  Marino   Shrimp
       ^ llr inii'uti  .vi /1 /VM/.S )  in  VOMIS  \V:i-
    -   tors."  Hull.  Miiniii' Xei. (.'»// Cnrilih.,
       4,  it.') (ls>r>l).
;>(>. dinner, 0.,  "Shrimp  landings  ami  pro-
       duction of  the, stalo of Texas  for the
       peiiod  l!t."i(i-l;>.~>!t,  with a  comparison
       \\ith  otlior  gulf  states."  I'ublx. lust.
       Marine .s'ci.  r/i/r.' 7'c.r.,  8, 2U>  (1902).
;>7. Samloz,  M.,  .-mil  Rogers,  K.,  "Tlio 10£-
       feet  of  Knviroiiiuoutal  Factors  ou
       llatfliing,  Moulting, ami  Survival of
       Xooa Larvae  of  the Blno Crab  Calli-
       tii'i-lc.i  mipidu*  Kutliliun."    Ecology
       25, CltJ  (1044).
3S. IIoosc, II. D.,  "Biotic Changes in  a Bay
       Associated   with   the   End    of  a
       Drought."   Liinnol Oceanog., 5, 326
39. Odum,  E.  P.,  "FundamontMs  of  Ecol-
       ogy."   2nd   Ed.,   W.  B.  Saunders
       Co",  Philadelphia,  Pa.  (1959J.
40. Diener,  K.  A.,  "Texas  Estuaries  and
       Water  Hesource  Development   Proj-
       ects."   Froc. 9th Conf.  Water {or
       Texas,  Q, 25  (1964).
41. Xasli, C. B., "Environmental  Character-
       istics of a River Estuary."  Jour. Ma-
       rine Res.,  6, 147 (1947).
42. Hutncr, S. II., and Provasoli,  L., "Nu-
       trition of  Algae."   Amer.  Rev. Plant
       Physiol,  15,  37  (1964).
43. Marshal, N., '' Chlorophyll a in  the Phyto-
       plankton  in  Coastal  Waters   of the
       Eastern  Gulf of Mexico."   Jour. Ma-
       rine Res.,  15,  14 (195G).
44. Pomeroy,  L.  R.,  "Algal Productivity in
       Salt  Marshes  of Georgia."   Limnol.
       Oceanog., 4, 386 (1959).
45. Pomeroy,  L.  E.,  Haskin,  H.  H.,  and
       Ragotskie,  E.  A.,   "Observations on
       Dinoflagellate    Blooms.''     Limnol.
       Oceanog.,  1,  54 (1956).
46. Bagotskie, B. A., "Plankton Productivity
       iu  Estuarine  Waters   of   Georgia."
       P«W. Inst. Marine Sci.  Univ.  Texas,
       G, 146 (1959).
47. Odum, H. T.,  and Hoskin, C. M., "Com-
       parative Studies of  the Metabolism of
                    Marine Waters."   l'ul>l. Inst. Marine
                    ,SVt.  Unit'.,  5, 1C  (1958).
              48.  Odum, II. T., and Wilson, R. F., "Fur-
                    Ilirr, Studies on K'eaeraf.ion .'md Mctab-
                    ulism   of  Te\;is  Jljiyn,  H*'"iH-l!)()0,"
                    I'liltl.  In*!, Mtii'iiie >SVi.   Uiiin, '^t;,f,HK,

              •111.  Chil.lre.-,s,  U.  If..,  "(!iioriliMal,iiiii of tlio
                    Illne   Oral)   Similes  (if  the   Texas
                    Const."    Marine  fisheries   l'roj(M'l.s
                    K'eporls  for  l'.ni:i,  Te\;is J'ni'ks  and
                    Wildlife Depl.,  Austin, Texas  (iniineo).
              50.  Oompfon,  II.,  "A   Study  of   the   Bay
                    I'opnlations   of    Juvenile    Shrimp,
                    J'l miens  ir.leeiis  and   1'cnaens   scli-
                    ji.nm."    Marino  Fisheries  Projects
                    Reports for  l!)00-<>], Texas Game and
                    Fish  Coiniii.,  Austin,  Texas (iniineo).
              51.  Mofi'cU, A.,  "A Study of the Texas Bay
                    Populations   of   Juvenile   Shrimp."
                    Marine Fisheries Project Reports for
                    100.1, Texas Parks  and Wildlife Dept.
              52.  Gnnter,   G.,   "Seasonal  Variations  in
                    Abundance  of  Certain  Estuarine  and
                    Marine Fishes in Louisiana,  with Par-
                    ticular  Reference  to  Life Histories."
                    Kcol. Monofjr.,  8,  313  (3938).
              53.  Springer,  V. G., and Woodburn, K. D.,
                    "An Ecological Study  of  the Fishes
                    of  the  Tampa  Bay  Area."   Florida
                    State  Bd.  Conservation Professional
                    Paper Ser. No.  1,  1 (1960).
              54.  Day, J.  II., "The  Ecology of South  Afri-
                   '•can Estuaries.  Part I:  A Review of
                    Estuarine   Conditions  in  General."
                    Trans.  Roy.  Soc.  S. Africa, 33, 53
              55.  Day,  J.   H.,  Millard,  N.  A.  H.,  and
                    Broekhuysen,  G. J., "The Ecology of
                    South African  Estuaries.  Part  IV:
                    The St. Lucia System."   Trans. Eoy.
                    Soc. S. Africa,  34, 129  (1954).
              56.  Millard, N.  A. II., and Harrison, A. D.,
                    "The Ecology of South African Estu-
                    .-srics.     Part  V:   Richard's  Bay."
                    Trans.  Kay.' Soo.  S. Africa,  34,  157
              57.  Nikolsky,   G.  V.,  "The  Ecology  of
                    Fishes."   Academic  Press,  New  York
              58.  Gunter, G., "Some Relations of Estuarine
                    Organisms   to    Salinity."    Limnol.
                    Oceanog., 6, 182  (1961).
              59.  Williams,  A.  B.,  "A  Survey  of North
                    Carolina  Shrimp  Nursery  Grounds."
                    Jour.  Elisha Mitchell  Sci.  Soc., 71,
                    200 (1955).


Congress of tije {Hnttefc States

                                «Sa6f)tngton, B.C.  20515
                                    February 26, 1969
                  Mr. Paul DeFalco
                  Regional Director
                  Pacific Southwest Region
                  Federal Water Pollution Control
                  760  Market Street
                  San Francisco, California 94102

                  Attention:  Mr. James C. McCarty, Jr.

                  Dear Sir:

                         Unfortunately, it was not possible  for me to
                  attend either of the two meetings co-sponsored  by
                  the California State Water Resources Council Board
                  and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.

                         However, I am pleased to submit  the enclosed
                  statement, in triplicate, for inclusion in the  record.

                         Thank you for providing me with  this opportunity.

                                               Sincerely  yours,
                                                        .  MILLER

                       8TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
       I have been concerned, politically and professionally, with the

problems and progress of the San Francisco Bay area all my life.  I was

born in San Francisco.  I went to college in Oakland.  I represented

Alameda County in the State Legislature for two terms.  I became directly

involved with the ecology of the Bay and its environs in some years of

service as Executive Officer of the California Division of Fish and Game.

       After coming to the Congress in 1944, I served on the Merchant

Marine and Fisheries Committee of the House.  And now on the Committee

on Science and Astronautics, of which I am Chairman, we are concerned

with the scientific and technological aspects of pollution abatement —

a challenging problem on which we conducted extensive and informative

hearings in 1966 and 1968.

       The point of these remarks is not biographical, it is ecological.

It is to validate my assurance to you that I have ample cause to be deeply

concerned with the subject of these hearings; that I have some knowledge

of the problem in California; and that I have compelling reason to support

this cooperative endeavor of the California State Water Resources Council

and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, aimed toward our

common goal of abatement and control of estuarine pollution.


       My concern is with the entire Bay system — not just the Oakland

Estuary, or San Leandro Bay, or south San Francisco Bay, all of which

are intimate to my 8th Congressional District.  So far as pollution is

concerned, none of these waters can be considered separately.  They all

affect each other.  The whole Bay system, from the inland waters of the

Delta, to out beyond the Golden Gate, is in truth one great estuary,

       So, until we cease utilizing these inland waters as a master sump

for sewage and waste disposal, until we really make up our minds together

to clean up the Bay — the whole Bay — to make it look nice and smell

nice again — not until then can we begin to achieve its potential as an

invaluable natural resource; as one of the great harbors of the world; as

a decent habitat for water fowl and fish; as a prime recreational asset

for yachtsmen, for fishermen, for visiting tourists, and for our own

citizens who love to live in this marvelous environment of San Francisco


       The cleanup job can be done.  In fact good progress has b8«n made

by several jurisdictions — especially the East Bay Municipal Utility

District, the Ora Loma Sanitary District, the cities of Hayward and San

Leandro.  I commend them.  But individual efforts are not enough.  We

need a master plan for the entire Bay system.

       The State Legislature has recognized this.  In the Water Pollution

Control Act of 1965 it authorized a comprehensive study of the effects of


waste and drainage discharge into the waters of the Bay and the Delta.

The study is well along.  I hope the Legislature will provide the necessary

funds to complete it this year or next.  I pledge my support, at the Federal

level, to the joint Estuarine Pollution Control Program now undertaken

by the California State Water Resources Council and the Federal Water

Pollution Control Administration.
                                 # # #

             507 Polk Street, San Francisco  9U102             557-3686

                          SAN FRANCISCO BAY:
                          WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE IN 50 YEARS?

     "San Francisco Bay is an irreplaceable gift of nature that man can either  abuse
and ultimately destroy — or improve and protect for future generations."

     Thus begins the Plan for San Francisco Bay prepared over  the past three years
of study and public deliberation by the 27 members  of  the San  Francisco Bay Con-
servation and Development Commission.  The Commission  was created by  the California
Legislature, through passage of the McAteer-Petris  Act in 1965,  (l) to prepare  a
Plan for the Bay, and (2) to regulate all filling and  dredging while  the Plan was
being prepared and while it is being considered by  the Governor and the Legislature
in 1969.

     This leaflet answers the questions most often  asked about the Bay and the  Bay
Why are so many people concerned about the Bay?

     Because the Bay can be made more useful than it now is — or it can be destroyed
by needless and gradual filling.

How can the Bay be made more useful?

     In several ways.  The Bay can play a greater role as a major world port.   Many
new job-producing industries can be developed around its shores.   And the recrea-
tional potential of the Bay has hardly been tapped at all:  new parks, marinas,
beaches, and fishing piers can provide close-to-home recreation for all segments of
the Bay Area's growing population.

What is Bay fill?

     It's replacing the waters of the Bay with dirt or sand or debris to create dry
land.  Past diking and filling have already shrunk the Bay substantially.  The Bay,
including San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays, now totals about ^00 square
miles in area.  In 1850, before extensive diking and filling of marshlands and tide-
lands had begun, the Bay totaled some 680 square miles in area.  (Some of the diked
areas remain, at least temporarily, as salt ponds or duck-hunting preserves, but
these areas have-nonetheless been removed from the daily tides of the Bay, and some
of them have been proposed for eventual filling.)  If all parts of the present Bay
less than 12 feet deep were to be filled — all the parts described by the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers as "susceptible of reclamation" —- the Bay would consist of
only 187 square miles.  In some places it would be little more than a river.

What should be done?

     The Bay can be protected and enhanced only if there is a politically-responsible,
democratic process by which the entire Bay can be analyzed, planned, and regulated

                                MftKING A BETTER BAY

  The Bay Plan provides that greater use of the Bay can be made, and Important
  public benefits can be provided, by:

  —developing modern port terminals, on a regional basis, to keep San Francisco
     Bay a major world harbor during a period of rapid change in shipping

  — developing sites for industries that require access to the Bay for transpor-
     tation of raw materials or manufactured products.

  — developing new recreational opportunities — shoreline parks, marinas,
     fishing piers, beaches, hiking and bicycling paths, and scenic drives.

  — developing expanded airport terminals and runways, jtf regional studies
     demonstrate that the growth in air transportation cannot be accommodated in
     any other way.

  -- developing new freeways (with construction on pilings, not solid fill), j.f
     thorough study determines that no feasible alternatives are available.

  — developing new public access to the Bay and enhancing shoreline appearance
     through filling limited to Bay-related commercial recreation and public
jjs a unit.  The Bay is a single body of water, in which filling one part can affect
other parts.  Filling that benefits a particular community or group may thus be
harmful to many others.

What are the most desirable uses of the Bay?

     Priority uses of the Bay are (l) port development, (2) water-related industrial
development, (3) water-related recreational development, (4) airport development (if
justified by regional airport studies), (5) freeways or other crossings on pilings,
not solid fill, j.f regional studies show the routes to be necessary, and (6) Bay-
related commercial recreation and public assembly that provide new public access to
the Bay and enhance shoreline appearance.

     In short, the most desirable uses of the Bay are those requiring a waterfront
location; uses that can just as easily be elsewhere, should be.

     These priority uses of the Bay provide substantial benefits to the public, and
some Bay filling may be justified for them j.f the same benefits could not be provided
equally well without filling.

Why not fill the Bay?

     Because filling is generally harmful to the Bay « and to man.


     Filling destroys the habitat of fish and wildlife.   The  Bay,  including  open
water, mudflats, and marshlands, is a complex biological system,  in which  tiny
organisms, plants, fish, waterfowl, and shorebirds live  in a  delicate  balance  created
by nature, and in which seemingly minor changes,  such as a new fill or dredging
project, may have far-reaching and sometimes highly-destructive effects.

     In addition, filling increases the danger of water  pollution. The Bay  receives
millions of gallons of municipal, agricultural, and industrial wastes  every  day.
Because most of these wastes are treated before discharge, the Bay is  now  relatively
unpolluted, at least by comparison with waterways elsewhere in the United  States.
But waste disposal poses a continuing threat to water quality because  the  amount of
waste will increase as the Bay Area's population increases.  Filling almost  always
reduces the ability of the Bay to assimilate the increasing quantities of  liquid
wastes being poured into it.  Filling reduces both the surface area of the Bay and
the volume of water in the Bay; this reduces the ability of the Bay to maintain
adequate levels of oxygen in its waters, and also reduces the strength of  the  tides
necessary to flush wastes from the Bay.

     Filling can also adversely affect Bay Area weather and can increase  smog.
Present research indicates that filling reduces the air-conditioning effects of the
Bay and increases the dangers of air pollution in the Bay Area.  Filling  reduces the
open-water expanses over which cool air can move inland from the  ocean; this reduces
the amount of cool air reaching the Santa Clara Valley and the Carquinez  Strait area
in the summer.  In addition, reducing the water surface area increases the frequency
and intensity of temperature-inversions, which trap air pollutants and cause an in-
crease in smog in the Bay Area.

Why do people want to fill the Bay?

     Partly because of the demands of a rapidly-increasing population  for  new, flat
land in urban areas near the Bay, and partly to "broaden the tax  base" of  a  particular
community.  The population of the nine-county Bay Area is now about ^.5 million;
experts predict almost a doubling in the next 30 years.   But there will still be no
necessity to fill the Bay just to create land; less than 1/5 of the land  suitable
for urban use in the nine Bay Area counties is now developed.
  The Bay itself both links and physically divides the great Bay Area cities which
  form a unique economic community.  Only artificially drawn lines of governmental
  jurisdiction break the continuity of Bay Area citizenship.  The Bay moderates
  the concentration of people, giving them unity and open space.  The Bay allies
  itself with the fog and the Pacific breezes as nature's air conditioning for San
  Francisco.  The Bay's awesome tidal flow of two million three hundred thousand
  cubic feet per second is three and one-half times the flow of the Mississippi
  River at its mouth.

                                   San Francisco Chamber of Commerce advertisement
                                   in Fortune Magazine
                                   June 15, 1968

How  can the Bay be filled -- doesn't the public own it?

     Not exactly.  Parts of the Bay are owned by many individuals, many corporations,
many agencies of local government, the State of California, and the Federal govern-
ment.  About 22 per cent of the Bay bottom is claimed by private owners as the result
of sales by the State a century or more ago; another 23 per cent has been granted by
the  State free to cities and counties; the State now owns only about 50 per cent of
the  Bay; and the Federal government owns the remaining 5 per cent.  Many parts of the
Bay  that are closest to shore, most shallow, and thus most easily filled, are held by
private owners or local governments that may wish to fill for various purposes.

Is it easy to get to the Bay?

     Most people in the Bay Area live close to the Bay (about three-quarters of the
people live within five miles of the shoreline) but for most people, the Bay is
almost inaccessible.  Probably less than 5 per cent of the 276-mile shoreline is
permanently open to the public now.  New access is especially needed in urban areas
       To the U million people who live in the cities and towns on its
       shores, San Francisco Bay is a body of water to be cherished —.
       sometimes veiled in soft, gray fog, sometimes sparkling with white
       sails, and always a soothing contrast to the clanging bustle of
       urban life.  But in recent years, lovers of the bay,  from San Rafael
       to Palo Alto, have had. to face up to a hard fact of life:   you can't
       have your bay and fill it, too ....

       Legislators received sacks of sand with cards reading, "You'll
       wonder where the water went if you fill the Bay with  sediment."
       The result was the setting up, in 1965, of the San Francisco Bay
       Conservation and Development Commissicn (BCDC).

                                                            Newsweek Magazine
                                                            November U, 1968
near the Bay where large concentrations of poor people live.  The Bay Plan urges that
highest priority be given to immediate recreational development in these areas througl
construction of public parks, beaches, fishing piers, hiking pathways, etc.

What about shoreline lands?

     If existing land bordering the Bay isn't used wisely, there will be added
pressures to fill the Bay to create new land.  Prime shoreline sites should there-
fore be reserved for priority uses — ports, water-related industry, water-related
recreation, etc. — and not used in any other ways.  Public access along the shore-
line should be provided wherever feasible.  And attractive design of shoreline
developments should be encouraged.  The Bay Plan thus recommends that the agency
designated to carry out the Plan have some jurisdiction over shoreline areas.

What about the salt ponds?
     The Bay Plan provides that as long as is economically  feasible, the ponds  (in
which sea water is evaporated by the sun,  leaving salt  to be harvested) should  be
maintained in their present use; the ponds were  once  part of the  shallows of the Bay
and still provide important habitat for wildfowl and  a  large expanse of water sur-
face to help combat smog.

     If, however, salt production is no longer economically feasible and the owner
of the salt ponds wants to convert the ponds to other uses, the Bay Plan urges  the
public to make every effort to buy some or all of them, open the  dikes, and return
the ponds to the Bay; this represents man's last substantial opportunity to enlarge
the Bay, rather than shrink it.

     But if available public funds do not permit such purchases,  and if the ponds
are to be used for urban development, then the Bay Plan provides  that  substantial
areas should be dedicated as permanent open water, just as  streets, parks,  and  other
areas are dedicated as a condition for land development in  cities and  counties.

Will filled land be safe in an earthquake?

     Virtually all fills in San Francisco Bay are placed on top  of Bay mud. The
construction of buildings on such fills creates a greater number  of potential hazards
to life and property, during normal settling and during earthquakes, than  does  con-
struction on rock or on dense, hard soil deposits.  But adequate  engineering can
reduce these potential hazards to acceptable levels.  The Bay  Plan recommends that,
to insure construction in accordance with safety standards, all  future fills be
evaluated by a Fill Review Board, consisting of outstanding geologists,  soils
engineers, architects, and structural engineers.
   The tidal zone where America borders the sea in bays, marshes, estuaries,
   sloughs and flats may be the least understood and most maligned fraction of
   our natural world.  The shallow edge of the -sea where salt water mingles with
   fresh, commonly called the estuarine zone, is the most productive acreage
   known to man.  It provides food and sport, moderates our weather and pro-
   tects us from the weight of a storm-driven ocean.  In return we dredge its
   shallows, pile muck onto its marshes, dam it off with highways and bulkheads
   and glorify our efforts as "reclamation."  We aren't reclaiming a thing --
   we are destroying.  And unless the Congress and the states move quickly to
   put into law the protective measures demanded by ecologists we will have
   sacrificed one of our greatest wealths to create dry sterile land that the
   nation already has in abundance ....

   It is tragically late to recognize the problem, but there are signs of an
   awakening.  Massachusetts has enforced, since 1965, a stiff law requiring
   permits for all alterations of estuarine areas.  And in San Francisco, the
   Bay Conservation and Development Commission has had the power to veto filling
   projects for the past three years while it worked out a master plan for Bay
                                                       Life Magazine editorial
                                                       July 19, 1968



What can private enterprise Jlo to improve  the  Bay?

     Private enterprise can provide industrial growth,  can help  finance port and air-
port development, can develop Bayfront housing, and can provide  opportunities for
commercial recreation along the shoreline.  These  developments will not only afford
opportunities for more people to use and enjoy the Bay  but will  also  create many new
jobs'.  Private investment in shoreline development is vigorously encouraged in the
Bay Plan.

Is Bay filling regulated now?

     Yes.  The McAteer-Petris Act, which created the BCDC,  specified  that  anyone
wishing to place fill in the Bay, or to dredge in the Bay,  must  first obtain a permit
from the Commission.  (Some aspects of Bay fill are also  regulated by some local
governments and by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.)  But the  regional  controls
provided by the McAteer-Petris Act are temporary.   They will expire,  and  the BCDC
will co out of existence, 90 days after adjournment of  the  1969  Legislature  (i.e.,
late in 1969).  The Bay Plan strongly recommends that  a permanent regional a0ency
be established by the State in 1969 to regulate all future  filling and dredging.

Why is 1969 so important?

     Because decisions as to the future of the Bay will be  made  in Sacramento  in
1969.  The BCDC, in submitting its Plan to the Governor and the  Legislature, has
strongly recommended that there be no lapse in efforts  begun by  the  State in 1965
to protect and enhance San Francisco Bay.
          Melvin B. Lane, Chairman
          William D. Evers, Vice Chairman
          Peter Behr
          Frank C. Boerger
          Harry A. Bruno
          Grant A. Burton
          Louis Ets-Hokin
          Hans A. Feibusch
          Houston I. Flournoy
          Robert L. Harkness
          Russell W. Hart
          Ronald R. James
          Norman B. Livermore, Jr.
          Gordon C. Luce
Mrs. Bernice Hubbard May
Thomas J. Mellon
James E. Moriarty
Melville Owen
Charles A. Quinn
Emanuel P. Razeto
Robert B. St. Clair
Leigh S. Shoemaker
Edwin J. Slevin
William F. Upton
Alfred Wanger
Mrs. Dean A. Watkins
Henry M. Wigger
                        You Can Get a Copy of the Bay Plan

      To order your  copy, please send $2.00 to Documents and Publications Branch,
Department  of General Services, P. 0. Box 20191, Sacramento  95820.

 HENRY MELLO, President                                                              _
 HERB BLANKS, Vice-President                                             ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY
 E. G. WALDEMAR, Secretary                                             BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

                                                     March 10, 196y
             Mr. Irving  M.  Terzich
             Pacific  Southwest Region
             Federal  '*Jater Pollution Control Adm.
             760 Market  Street
             San Francisco, California 94102

             Daar Mr.  Terzicn:

             It is indeed an honor to  iiave the opportunity to add my
             reraerks  to  the record of  the public hearings on "Water
             Quality  management for Estuaries" held  in Gan Francisco
             February 18-19, 1969.  The Association  of Monterey Bay
             Area Governments (AMBAG) ,  which I represent, is pleased
             to inform you of its interest and activities relative
             to astuarine study, protection, and enhancement.

             E3TUARINL STUDY

             AMBAG has been formed, tui rough a joint  powers agreement
             among interested city and county governments in the area
             tributary to Monterey Bay, to initiate  efforts to pre-
             serve the utility and beauty of that most unique body of
             coastal  water.  Additionally we are obviously concerned
             in a corollary fashion with the prospects for continued
             growth of land-based activities in the  region that may
             contribute  to degradation of the Bay's  quality.  '"le
             would like  to be in a position eventually to point out
             to action agencies,  including some of our own member
             organizations, some water quality management olans that
             could be undertaken in a  long-term and  comprehensive
             manner to prevent such degradation from occurring.

             To do this  AMBAG believes it imperative that a compre-
             hensive  study be initiated immediately,  or certainly very
             soon, to establish

                   1.  the static and  dynamic resource inventory of
                       Monterey Bay, including fundamental oceano-
                       graphic,  hydrodynamic, water  quality, and
  Established January 8th, 1M8, to form an organization composed of governmental agencies in the Counties of Monterey, San Benito and Santa GUI to explore probl
                having a direct effect on the health, welfare and economy of Monterey Say and Us retention as a natural asset.

Mr. Irving M. Terzich                         Page 2
March 10, 1969
          ecologic data describing the Bay;

      2.  trends in land uses and population growth in
          the Monterey Bay tributary watersheds, as well
          as the relationships between these growth
          patterns and the attendant changes in Bay qual-
          ity that sucn patterns night induce if left un-
          checked; and

      3.  the relative feasioilities of alternative engin-
          eering-management plans or projects that would
          protect the Bay's quality from the effects of
          such growth or indeed that might enhance the
          Bay's quality in spite of such growth.

Currently AMBAG is preparing a framework plan for such a
study, and will be in contact with your agency, since we
know it is precisely such studies of estuarine areas as
unique as Monterey Bay that are of paramount importance
to you and to all the people.


The study that AMBAG envisions will also address some
interesting regional estuarine problems involving trans-
ference of quality problems from one estuary to another.
It is not sufficient, in our judgment, to protect Mont-
erey Bay at considerable or even prohibitive cost to
communities or ecologic populations elsewhere, includ-
ing the near-shore ocean environment or towns and cities
up and down the coast from our particular Bay.

In short, protection of our Bay must be effected through
management schemes and engineering works directed toward
the most efficient service to the people and economy of
our region, as well as toward the minimization of imposi-
tion of our problems on other people, regions, or eco-
systems.  Consequently we envision that our study will
require and will include the most advanced systems analysis
and management tools to aid the people of Monterey Bay in
making sensible and near-optimal decisions about the
quality-protection options that we have or can create.

Mr. Irving M. Terzich                            Page 3
March 10, 1969

There is little doubt but that interest in, and resources
for, the type of study we believe necessary for ?4onterey
Bay could be and should be encouraged and solicited, not
only by ourselves, but by federal and state agencies as
well who must cooperate with those of us in local agencies
wishing to do the bidding of the oeople---the people who
have endured their final Santa Barbara.  There is no
reason to believe that methods and ideas derived in our
study could not be applied to estuarine areas in other
parts of our state and indeed throughout the nation.  It
is not, we believe, too optimistic or idealistic to trust
that science working at the aid of policy can lead us to
an informed set of decisions about ways and means of pre-
serving and indeed enhancing both the use and the quality
of Monterey Say for ourselves and for future generations.
It is with this goal in mind that we will soon begin- our
study, and we can only conclude that your agencies are
seeking similar goals through meetings of this kind.

                             Respectfully submitted,

                             jrf~*n  ,

                            /il4nry J/ r-Jello, President
                             Associ^rfc^on of Monterey
                             Bay Xjfea Governments

                                                    of the
              bl/\TE COLLEGES  at Fresno, Hayward, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose

                                                          P.O. Box 223, Moss Landing, California 95039

Office of the Director                                                           14 February  1969
 Federal  Water  Pollution Control Administration

 California  State  Water Resources Control Board


 On  behalf of the  Moss  Landing Marine Laboratories of the California State Colleges, I

 should like to endorse in the strongest possible terms the developing federal and state

 programs  for protection of our bays and estuaries.  The intent and approach of the 1966

 Clean Water Restoration Act,  and the emphasis provided by Congressman Dingell's H.R. 25,

 clearly  have placed  estuary protection as a top priority concern of the Federal

 government.  This priority has been reaffirmed in the several reports to Congress by

 the President  on  Marine Resources and Engineering Development.

 A.  State-level Concern for Estuarine Environmental Quality.

    For purposes  of  the record,  let me provide some elements of documentation as to

    State of California concern for protection of estuaries.  This concern has been

    expressed  both in  general terms of resources use planning, and in a very specific

    way  through the  setting of priorities for action in the safeguarding of water

    quality.   (Selected quotations from State documents are provided in Appendix A.)

         Major  actions  by State and regional bodies within the last few years testify

    to mounting public concern for California's environmental amenities generally and

    water quality particularly.   Certainly California's leaders are increasingly con-

    cerned  about  protecting the priceless values of California's nearly 1200 miles of

    open wave-washed coastline,  and some 650 miles of additional shoreline found in

    sheltered  bays and estuaries.  All these irreplaceable assets are vulnerable to

    the  most massive population growth pressures and technological changes that have

    ever  faced any people any place on earth.  Since World War II California has


Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.          - 2 -                 14 February 1969

    doubled in population, has shifted from a predominantly agrarian to strongly

    industrialized technology, and has developed highly urbanized centers to become

    the most populous state in the nation.  Most of this growth has been concentrated

    along the coast, with some 13 million Californians now living within an hour's

    drive of the Pacific, and a coastal residentppulation estimated to approach 20

    million by 1980.

        These major state actions have included resource use policy positions adopted

    by the State of California Resources Agency 1965-67, and the three-volume California

    Fish and Wildlife Plan of 1966, certainly the most comprehensive resources planning

    program of its kind yet developed by any state (cf. Appendix A, pp. A-ltoA-4).

        Additionally, first by executive action and later by legislative mandate,

    California has created a top-level Advisory Commission on marine and coastal

    resources, charged with policy recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature

    (Governor's Advisory Commission on Ocean Resources, 1965-1968; superceded by the

    California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources, 1968; cf. Appendix

    A, pp. A-4 to A-5).

        Most recently, as recommended by the Advisory Commission, Governor Reagan has

    established the executive Interagency Council on Ocean Resources, composed of the

    heads of concerned state agencies under chairmanship of the Lieutenant Governor.

B.   Regional and Local Concern for Estuarine Environmental Quality.

        Elsewhere in these hearings, I am certain that testimony will be offered

    concerning regional and local actions to protect the water qualities and other

    environmental amenities of California's bays and estuaries.  Most notable of these

    regional approaches is that of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development

    Commission, which has made a herculean effort over the past several years to

    develop a long-term management plan for optimal development of this great bay.


Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.           - 3 -                 14 February 1969

    A somewhat similar effort is now underway for Monterey Bay,  where cities  and counties

    have entered into a joint powers agreement to form the Association of Monterey Bay

    Area Governments (AMBAG).  This organization presently is planning necessary research

    and management steps to protect the Monterey Bay region from destructive  water


        As further illustration of local initiative to solve water quality problems,

    state and local government, private industry, civic groups,  and the general public

    have combined forces at Moss Landing on Monterey Bay to take steps necessary to

    reduce pollution of the Elkhorn Slough-Moss Landing Harbor estuarine system.  This

    positive action follows two years of effort in defining the  problems, feasible

    solutions to them,  and in developing funding procedures which would be acceptable

    to the major industries of the area as well as to the general citizens.

        I suggest that  this successful  community effort is illustrative of a  new

    attitude toward water quality standards and near-shore environment protection.

    Further, I believe  that it has come about in part because of the leadership pro-

    vided by both Federal and State agencies in regard to water  quality control.  In

    the Moss Landing instance, State and County health departments detected and defined

    the pollution problem; the County Board of Supervisors created the necessary public

    structure to seek practical solutions to that problem; and private industry, local

    agencies and organizations, and individual property owners carried on the necessary

    dialogue to arrive  at a compromise  approach to funding.

        In the context  of today's hearings, I urge that Federal  and State agencies

    view these examples of regional concern for estuarine water  quality as convincing

    evidence that our national and state programs are gaining in  power and effectiveness.

    It is vital that we capitalize on this growing momentum, and continue to  press for

    expanded effort for the preservation of environmental amenities in our nearshore


Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.           - 4 -                 14 February 1969

    and estuarine ecosystems.  Usually  the needed action program must  depend upon local

    support for viability; but very often the initial leadership and problem definition

    must come from national or state levels.   Certainly too,  since the world's oceans

    form an inter-communicating link among all estuaries, problems and their solution

    are never entirely local.  Therefore state and federal standards,  technical

    assistance, and financial participation are both necessary and desirable.

C.  Considerations of Estuary Values.

        The National Estuarine Pollution Study accepts certain premises concerning

    value as expressed under "Frame of  Reference" in the March, 1968,  summary booklet.

    My remarks will not attempt to cover this area, but rather will provide  selected

    documentation of three particular facets  of estuary value:  first, in terms of

    some recent dollar value estimates  for nearshore waters of California; second, in

    terms of living laboratory values of a specific estuary for educational  and scien-

    tific research purposes; and third, in terms of particular ecological significance

    of the shallow water areas of estuaries.

    1.   Values of California's nearshore waters.

        William D. Clarke of Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory, San Diego,

        recently (September, 1967) produced an interesting assessment  of uses and

        values for California's nearshore environment.*•  While the total figures

        encompass open coast as well as estuaries, still the outline of uses and the

        estimates of comparative values are instructive.
        •'"Clarke, Wm. D., 1967.  The Nearshore Waters, California's Resource of the
Future.  Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory, San Diego,  Calif. Scientific Paper
67-lC7-OCEAN-p. 1.  17 pp.


Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.          - 5 -                 14 February  1969

        Dr. Clarke identifies,  subdivides,  and briefly analyzes five classes of uses

        of the nearshore waters:

            a.  Recreational (fishing, boating, swimming,  camping,  etc.)

            b.  Commercial (fisheries, kelp harvesting,  oil,  salt,  harbors,  etc.)

            c.  Scientific (educational,  research, developmental)

            d.  Waste disposal  (domestic, agricultural,  industrial  sewage,  garbage,

                thermal and saline wastes)

            e.  Future uses (underwater,  habitation,  fresh water,  aquaculture,

                nutrients, etc.)

        Most,  though not all of these have  an impact  upon  estuaries and embayments

        that is greater in terms of effect  per unit area than it is along the open

        coast.  Many of these actual or potential uses are directly competing,  and

        some are mutually excluding.  All must be considered  in assessing the potential

        value  of any segment of the nearshore environment. Most will figure to

        greater or less extent  in the decision-making process for  shoreline  and

        near-shore water management.

            Dr.  Clarke also includes an interesting t&ble  of  comparative economic

        worth  for various uses  of the California shoreline, which  accords a  major

        economic edge to recreational uses  as opposed to commercial and other more

        or less  consumptive uses.  He estimates the total  annual value of California's

        nearshore waters in excess of one and a_ quarter^ billion dollars.  More  than

        two thirds of that value  he assigns to recreational uses (887 million dollars

        per year, of which tourist expenditures account  for 450 million,  boating

        316 million,  sport fishing 107 million).  He  evaluates commercial uses  at

        nearly 390 million dollars, with  seawater cooling  for power generation

        accounting for 213 million of that  total, oil industry 138  million,  and

        commercial fisheries 23 million.


Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.           - 6  -                  14  February 1969

            He estimates waste disposal at sea at 9.4  million as  the value  of annual

        savings through deposition of sewage at sea  as opposed to some alternate  means

        of handling it.

            Dr. Clarke's figures represent an extremely interesting effort  at quanti-

        fication of values.   While these absolute numbers do not  apply directly to

        estuarine situations,  the comparative values may prove a  useful model against

        which to test local  problems, and through which to seek one type  of criterion

        for decision-making.  Certainly I would hope,  and very strongly urge, that we

        would never permit ourselves to be trapped into decision-making on  estimated

        dollar value criteria alone.

    2.   Uses of Elkhorn Slough-Moss Landing Harbor as_ a_ living laboratory for educa-

        tional and scientific purposes.

            As an example of particular values of an estuary, let me cite uses as an

        adjunct to the educational and  scientific process of a single  small embayment

        tributary to Monterey Bay in Central California.  Moss Landing Harbor and

        Elkhorn Slough constitute a priceless living laboratory reasonably  close  to

        population centers of Central California, and  with ready  access for students

        and faculty of seven collegiate institutions,  none more than half an hour away.

        This estuarine system is tiny by comparison  to the enormous size  of the San

        Francisco Bay complex, but in miniature it is  a near-perfect model  of a salt-

        water embayment, to  date relatively unspoiled  by single-purpose exploitative

        encroachments.  Incidentally, Elkhorn Slough is world-renowned as the site of

        pioneering estuarine biological studies carried out several decades ago by

        the McGinities.

            Three community  (junior) colleges and four senior collegiate  institutions

        use this estuary for general education of students, and as outdoor  laboratory


Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.          - 7 -                 14  February  1969

        for advanced research by marine scientists and engineers.   These  senior insti-

        tutions include the University of California at Santa Cruz,  Stanford  University's

        Hopkins Marine Station at Pacific Grove,  the U. S.  Navy's  Postgraduate  School

        at Monterey, and the California State Colleges' Marine Laboratories at  Moss

        Landing.  The Naval Postgraduate School is the only institution of its  kind  in

        the United States,  providing M.S. and Ph.D. education for  career  naval  and

        marine officers.  The facilities of Stanford and the University of California

        serve two illustrious university systems.  The Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

        provide marine science educational and research opportunities  for students from

        five Central California colleges, operating the year around with  a local

        enrollment averaging 60.

            Recent estimates of educational and research uses of Elkhorri  Slough

        indicate that college students invest nearly 5,000  man-days per year  in support

        of their academic career objectives.  These 5,000 man-days involve some 1200

        college students.  Many of these are on single-day  field trips from schools

        outside the Monterey Bay area, but perhaps 200 are  resident students  engaged

        in long-term studies for which the estuary is a central living laboratory.

            To these collegiate uses can be added another 2,000 man-days  of high

        school student use, and 500 to 1000 man-days of elementary school use.

            Conservative estimates for growth in these educational and research uses

        indicate a 50 to 60% increase over the next five years.

            These use figures cannot be equated to dollars, nor should they be.  Their

        significance in terms of investment in the future is truly incalculable.

    3.   Particular ecological values of shallow areas of bays and  estuaries.

            As final special note on values of estuaries, I should like to stress  the

        role of marshes and mudflats in maintenance of biological  health  of the total


Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.           - 8 -                 14  February 1969

        system.  The following is abstracted from recommendations  provided  in  1968 to

        the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development  Commission  in  relation to

        the values of bay marshes and mudflats, and provides the basis for  arguments

        in favor of careful sequestering of these vulnerable areas against  diking and

        filling for single-purpose exploitative purposes:

            Salt marshes are extraordinarily fertile.  Living marsh plants  fix the

        energy of  sunlight into their  tissues through photosynthesis, and  expel  oxygen

        to the surrounding environment.  Thus primary productivity is  high  in  the


            Large numbers of birds, including ducks and geese, come to the  marshes to

        feed on the lush vegetation or  on the brackish-water animals that thrive  there.

        Their wastes, the decomposition products of plant  decay, and other  elements

        of the complex food web, contribute nutrients from the marshes to the  shallows

        of the bay margin supporting a  vast marine-life nursery.

            The mudflats are converters of energy derived  from nearby   environments

        including the marshes.  In addition, their moist surface provides the  habitat

        for highly productive minute algae.

            Each ebb and flow of the tide exposes these tiny plants alternately to

        abundant light energy and to the high nutrient content of  the  shallow  bay

        waters.  Each tidal interchange injects oxygen into the water, and  thereby

        contributes to the support of marine life and the  reduction of pollution.

            Most marine life of the bay depends either directly or indirectly  upon

        the marshes and mudflats for energy and for oxygen.

            The wet surface areas of marshes and mudflats  also provide enormous absorp-

        tion surfaces for air pollutants.

I trust that these comments and suggestions will be helpful.

                                                      P. Harville, Director
                                                 Moss Landing Marine Laboratories


California's mounting concerns for nearshore waters, the coastal zone, and bays and
estuaries have been reflected in actions of the past several years first to study the
problems involved, and second, to mobilize resources to meet these problems.  Early
in 1964, Governor Brown convened a conference on "California and the World Ocean"
which launched state government on an appraisal of problems and promises of California's
marine environment.  The Governor's Advisory Commission on Ocean Resources (GACOR)
was created as result of that conference, to review and evaluate the State's goals
and commitments in ocean resource development.  This advisory body has been continued
under Governor Reagan's administration, and in 1968 was given legislative mandate and
broadened responsibilities as the California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal
In October, 1965, the Institute of Marine Resources of the University of California
issued its comprehensive report entitled "California and the Use of the Ocean" under
the editorship of distinguished scientist M. B. Schaefer.  This report was a first
major step toward California's development of a comprehensive master plan for effective
use of the oceans and their resources.  Concurrent with that publication, the Resources
Agency of California issued its "Study of Resource Policy Directions for California"
(December, 1965), and followed this in December 1966 with "California and the Ocean".
From 1966 to the present, appropriate state agencies and the Advisory Commissions
have continued to develop and implement a master plan approach to marine resources
development.  The most recent major step in this direction has been creation by
Governor Reagan of a top-level executive body, the Interagency Council on Ocean
Resources, made up of the heads of concerned state agencies under the chairmanship of
the Lieutenant Governor.
The following selected notes from 1965-1967 documents illustrate California's evolving
concern for estuarine resources and their protection, and in my judgment, constitute
a very strong state commitment to the same basic goals embodied in Federal legislation.



1.   Resources Agency of California—analysis o_f_ problems  and acceptance  of responsi-


    In its 1965  "Study of Resource  Policy Directions  for  California",  the  Resources

    Agency faced squarely the massive  difficulties  of population  pressure  and

    resources deterioration,  and announced its  plans  for  meeting  these problems.

    The following quotations  are appropriate for their implications  for  estuarine  and

    inshore water protection.

    a.  Competition for Resources (pg.  3):

            "Competition for  the use of the State's resources is  growing
            at an enormous rate...Each day there are  2,000 more Californians,
            and each day the  State  loses approximately 170 acres  of  open
            farmlands for homes, factories, roads,  and public facilities."

        [In its  1966 publication, "California and the Ocean", the Resources Agency

        added these notes in  specific  relation  to inshore marine  resources (pg.  105):]

            "Approximately 13 million  people now live within an hour's
            drive of California's Pacific Ocean shoreline, and by 1980
            the  population of urban communities bordering the coast  will
            perhaps reach a level of 20 million people.  The economy of
            the  State is closely tied  to the resources of the shoreline
            and the adjacent  waters.   The living inshore  marine resources
            and the users of  these  resources compete  with each other for
            space and utilization of habitat.

            "...Multiple-purpose use of our shoreline need not'create
            serious conflicts of interest and problems; however,   without
            proper planning,  problems  can and will  develop.  For  example,
            Southern California marine sewer outfalls are currently
            discharging approximately  one billion gallons of effluent
            per  day, or roughly the present ocean discharge of the
            Sacramento River, and by 1980 this  amount should be doubled."

    b*  The^ Fading Beauty of_ California.

            "California's almost legendary reputation for environmental
            amenities has been a major factor in attracting millions of
            people.  These, plus the State's renowned system of higher
            education, have contributed greatly to  the concentration in
            California of a large pool of scientific  and  technological
            "brain power"...In addition, California's unsurpassed natural
            beauty attracts millions of tourists each year...(1965,  pg.  3)


        "No great technical ability or special insight is required
        to perceive California's future problems--they are already
        quite evident.  Acrid air, polluted streams, blighted cities,
        declining fisheries, overcrowded recreation and scenic areas,
        recurrent floods and fires--multiply these by ever-increasing
        factors of population growth and urban expansion.  This is
        what California must endure in 1980, if it does not plan for
        a growth which will enable its people to live in harmony with
        their natural environment; if it does not prevent the destruction
        of the beauty which has made California a good place to live." (pg. 3)

c.  Enhancement of_ Environmental Amenities.

        "The impact of California's mushrooming population on the beauty
        of its environment until recently has been accepted as an
        inevitable result of industrialization and urbanization...The
        deterioration and destruction of the State's amenities since
        World War II is an indictment of a society which has shown an
        amazing capacity to meet almost every other challenge of growth
        and expansion.  But the environmental erosion caused by past
        growth becomes alarming when viewed in the perspective of a
        California of the future which will be called upon to accommodate
        40 million people.  The legacy of the State's past cannot be
        accepted as a pattern for its future...

        "Recent actions of government and elements of the private sector
        indicate that further deterioration of the environment and loss
        of beauty will not be viewed as a necessary adjunct of economic
        progress... However, what is needed is a means of including
        concern for environmental quality as an integral part of all
        planning and developmental programs."  (1965, pg. 18)

d.  Principles of_ Good Stewardship—Goals for California.

        "Enhancement of the Quality of_ Life:

        "It should be a goal of the State of California to preserve
        and enhance the quality of life of present and future
        citizens by preventing a degradation of the natural environ-
        ment and by seeking an optimum balance between economic and
        social benefits to be derived from the State's natural resources...
        A major problem in resources management is to find the proper
        balance between the development of the economy and the con-
        servation of its resources--between sound, long-run economic
        development and short-sighted, short-run economic overdevelopment.
        (Pg. 17)

        "Freedom of Choice for the Future:

        "The wild river, virgin forest or primitive beach which is not
        preserved today cannot be restored by a future generation.
        Some decisions, not made today, can never be made... It should
        be the goal of the State of California to preserve for future
        generations the greatest possible range and freedom of choice
        in the use and enjoyment of the State's natural resources,  (pg. 8)



            "Intergovernmental Collaboration;

            "There is clear need for coordination of state,  federal,  local,
            and private programs in all resources fields...  It should be a
            goal of the State of California to find ways of organizing to
            promote an efficient combination of public and private efforts
            in seeking California's goals of resources management." (pg. 9)

            "Problems of urban growth and the  management of resources are
            interrelated... Formal procedures  must be established for
            increased communication between the resources manager and the
            urban planner and for the continuous exchange of technical

            "The State should pursue vigorously with the Federal Government
            the need to create a high-level inter-governmental mechanism
            for coordination of resources management...  (pg. 25)

            "The State should intensify its efforts to stimulate local
            governments to undertake regional  planning programs, and
            should participate as a partner with local government in  the
            formulation and development of regional development plans." (pg.  25)

2.  Governor's Advisory Commission on Ocean Resources (GACOR) 1965-1968, and

    California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources (CMC) 1968-present.

    As its first order of business, GACOR conducted a detailed analysis of the

    Institute of Marine Resources 1965 document "California and Use of 1he Ocean".

    The following quotations essentially are affirmations of GACOR support for

    recommendations of that document.  Since GACOR represented a broad spectrum of

    scientists, engineers, state agency administrators, and political leaders, this

    support has great significance both to the State of California and to the nation.

    a.  Establishment of bay and estuarine preserves.

        GACOR recommended that "state government accord high priority to
            immediate establishment of reserves in certain bay and estuarine
            areas that are rapidly being irreversibly modified by man's
            action. .."

        GACOR supported the statement in the Institute of Marine Resources
            report that 'it is important that  a sufficient number and
            variety of typical marine habitats be set aside as marine
            reserves to insure the survival of all species of marine
            plants, invertebrates, fishes, mammals, and waterfowl to
            preserve the various types of communities.  This is necessary
            in order to maintain large heterogeneous natural gene pools
            for the future use of mankind; to provide outdoor museums for



            education and public enjoyment and to supply intellectual and
            esthetic appreciation; to make possible scientific research on
            organisms and communities in their natural state."
            (GACOR Proceedings of Meeting IV, La Jolla, Calif., June 1966)

    b.  Maintenance of_ some marine environments for low-density use.

        GACOR recommended that "some marine environments should be maintained
            by the State for low density use and should be protected from
            excessive human interference.

            "The importance of this recommendation is based upon the fact that
            the current basis for decisions on the use and development of
            outdoor resources do not adequately protect either the minority
            or the long time values of the people of the State.

            "Those who are making the decisions on the recreational use of
            public lands and waters need support to help maintain low density
            areas and wide variety of recreational opportunities... The need
            for action is urgent, and cannot await the development and
            refinement of measurement techniques."  (ibid, pg. 27)

    c.  Waste Management and pollution control.

        GACOR recommends that the State "...prepare on a routine basis a
            detailed inventory of all waste discharges (municipal, indus-
            trial, and agricultural) to the waters of the State.  Of
            especial interest to GACOR is an inventory of wastes discharged
            to estuarine and coastal waters..."  (ibid, pg. 80)

        GACOR also supported the recommendation of the IMR report (pg. 2-29)
            for assignment of beneficial water uses and establishment of
            general criteria for the quality of receiving waters for those
            ocean and estuarine waters located near population centers.

3.  The California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources in its 1968

    and 1969 reports has reiterated the high priority of all these recommendations of

    the earlier Commission.  Additionally, the Commission and the Interagency Council

    on Ocean Resources in 1968 funded a preliminary study of California's coastal zone.

    (published in September, 1968: "California's Coastal Zone" by Bendix Bradbury

    Associates, and Copley International Corporation.)  Finally, in November, 1968,

    the Commission made the following specific recommendation in relation to the

    urgency for a comprehensive program of environmental data collection in California's

    near-shore waters:


"In order to augment higher education in the marine sciences,
expand field research activities of prime importance to decision-
making, and provide meaningful information services to the people
of California, the California Advisory Commission on Marine and
Coastal Resources recommends that a coordinated program of near-
shore environmental data collection and analysis be developed.

"This continuing effort should encompass the total coastline of
California.  It should be implemented principally by California's
educational institutions so that they can provide expanded student
opportunities for field research, and at the same time develop
the detailed environmental inventories and relative base-line
data which are requisite to effective decision-making in the
development of California's coastline.  However, there is no
intention to exclude other state or federal agencies or industry
from participating in this program.

"Institutions that assume these coordinated responsibilities will
be eligible to receive augmented support from state and applicable
federal sources.  To implement this coordinated program, interested
institutions should define the prime areas for which they will
accept data collection and analysis responsibility.

"To assure early coverage for the entire coastline, agreement among
the participants as to allocation of prime areas of responsibility
should be reached prior to initiation of support to any single

"To qualify for this special funding, institutions should direct
a portion of their effort toward mission-oriented public services
of direct benefit to local users of the shoreline and near-shore

"To carry out this coordinated program, participating institutions
should be encouraged to pool their special resources and facilities
to the degree practicable.

"To assure information exchange, identification of areas requiring
emphasis, and effective dissemination of data and conclusions,
periodic conferences should be arranged among all participants  and
any other interested parties.

"Since these recommendations relate to the four segments of California
higher education, the California Advisory Commission on Marine  and
Coastal Resources requests that these recommendations be referred
through appropriate executive and legislative channels to the
Coordinating Council for Higher Education for implementation."



4.  Conclusion:   State of California's commitment tp_ protection of estuaries.

    From materials quoted here,  it is apparent that this state has mobilized along

    a broad front to develop attitudes, principles, and criteria for effective

    management of marine resources, with particular attention to her increasingly

    endangered estuaries.  The Institute of Marine Resources report specifically

    indicates eleven bays and estuaries which demand particular attention.

    California's Department of Fish and Game, in a more recent report,  "California

    Fish and Wildlife Plan" (1966, Vol. Ill,  pp. 782-805),  has inventoried  eighteen

    bays and estuaries,  and has  summarized major fisheries  and wildlife resources

    for each.  Such important groundwork by a large and powerful State  constitutes

    significant  a_ priori endorsement of the fundamental multiple-use principles

    the Federal  Government hopes to serve through both the  Clean Waters Restoration

    Bill and Congressman Dingell's H.R. 25 bill.

    Perhaps there is no  better way to summarize this state-level commitment than

    to quote from the covering letter of the  1967 report "The Last Frontier"

    submitted to the Legislature by the Assembly Committee  on Natural Resources,

    Planning,  and Public Works,  Edwin L. Z'Berg, Chairman:


            "The Subcommittee on Marine Resources of the Assembly Committee
            on Natural Resources,  Planning, and Public Works submits herewith
            its  report to the Legislature on 1965-67 studies dealing with
            the  conservation and development  of the rich and varied natural
            resources of the marine and coastal environment in California.

            As our terrestrial resources become progressively depleted  by the
            demands of growth, we  must turn increasingly to our last frontier
            for  the resources necessary to maintain, and enhance wherever
            possible,  the unique quality of California life.  In this venture,
            however, we  must demonstrate that we have learned from our  mistakes
            by ensuring  that the short-term,  single-purpose philosophy  which
            presently dominates  terrestrial resources management is replaced
            by a long-range, multiple-purpose policy guaranteeing the conser-
            vation and development of our marine and coastal resources  in the
            total public interest.


"As the result of its study of this important and complex subject,
the subcommittee concludes that there is urgent need for the
formulation and adoption of a comprehensive marine resources
policy by the state, and in its report recommends passage of the
Marine Resources Conservation and Development Act as the first
step toward this goal.  The act creates the California Commission
on Marine Resources, which is charged with the responsibility of
formulating a long-range master plan--based upon a comprehensive,
continuously updated program of research and exploration—for the
balanced conservation and development of our proximate ocean

"In the view of the committee, the adoption of this approach—which
is consistent with that recommended in its numerous other studies
of such problem areas as development in the Lake Tahoe Basin,
comprehensive watershed management, highway and freeway planning,
the filling of San Francisco Bay, and the regional economy of the
north coast redwoods--is vital to the responsible and continuing
resolution of the increasingly serious conflicts in resources
allocation posed by California's explosive growth.  It is clear
that only through such efforts will it be possible to maintain
some element of the incomparable productivity and natural beauty
of the number one state for the enjoyment of future generations..."

                                                        February 18, 1969

  To:  Mr. Irving M. Terzich
       Pacific Southwest Region
       Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
       760 Market Street
       San Francisco, Calif.  9^102

From:  H. Thomas Harvey, Ph.D., Ecologist
       Biological Sciences Dept. San Jose State College
       representing So. Bay Wildlife Refuge Committee and endorsed by various
       Audubon Societies and the Sierra Club, Also V. Pres. San Francisco Bay
       Estuarine Association.

  Re:  Water quality management for estuarine areas in California

       It is a privilege and a challenge to attempt to answer the five salient
questions you raise regarding the estuary system of California.  Though many
of the following comments may apply to other estuarine areas the emphasis is
on S. F. Bay.  It is our greatest estuary and it is under the greatest threat
of destruction.

Values  Estuaries are of incalcuable value to those of us who teach ecology
or conduct research in such rich and unique habitats.  They posses plants
with strange capacities to excrete salt and to withstand internal cellular
pressures twenty times that of ordinary land plants.  These land plants which
have returned to the edge of the sea are apparently among the most productive
of all known non-cultivated plants, capable of such fantastic yields as 10-15

     Estuaries are known to be the nurseries for sports fish which provide
recreation for thousands of people around the Bay area.  Hunting and bird
watching are particularly rewarding in estuarine areas of S.F. Bay.  Over a
hundred different species of birds can be observed along the edge of S.F. Bay.
Boating, hiking and artistic pursuits all can be counted as additional
recreational values of an estuary such as S.F. Bay.

     All of the above can be measured in part by theeconomies which they
generate.  For example Mel Scott estimates that sport fishing is worth
$23,000,000 a year, while hunting may be worth another $7,000,000.  These
are healthy economies only as the estuary is healthy, for they depend on the
productivity of the estuary community, a community based on healthy marsh
plants and phyto-plankton.  Even the health of the citizens around the bay may
be evaluated on a dollars and cents basis.  Although firm figures are lacking,
ecological knowledge and logic point to the dollar value of open space  near
metropolitan areas so that smog is reduced, water pollution is ameliorated,
and the mental health of the citizens is enhanced.  By leaving the estuary
natural the environment is not loaded with additional pollutants detrimental
to human life and thus we are saved the added expense of compensating for these
pollutants.  Although subject to some variation of interpretation, it presently
takes about an acre of shallow water to oxidize the effluent from 200 homes.
To destroy that capacity of the estuary means that we must pay to coritruct
sewage treatment facilities to take care of it.  The personal values of clean
water and air are threatened by continued loss of the magnificant estuary,
S.F. Bay.

     To access the aesthetic value of the Bay is a most difficult task,  I
like mud flats, others do not.  Waving marsh grasses in the  evening during
the fall bring forth emotional responses from most people.   But what  is the
worth of a wild bird in flight?  Who can put a price on the  glory of  a moonrise
over the marsh?  Of particular esthetic and educational value are rare and en-
dangered species such as the red-bellied harvest mouse and the Clapper rail.

Damage by. pollution   It has been estimated by Ted Wooster of the Calif. Dept,
of Fish and Game that over 200,000 man-days per year of recreational  clam
digging are lost to people around S.F. Bay due to water pollution.  Commercial
sewage is known to reduce numbers and kinds of invertebrates in the mud which
in turn probably serve as food to other marine forms.

     Personal use of much of the South Bay is foxqgone because of the  level
of pollution, with body contact sports such as swimming and  water skiing
unavailable.  Ganssle, in 1963t suggested that pollution adversely affected
salmon migration, which in turn would decrease the subsequent spawning and
future populations and thus make inroads into the eventual commercial  fisheries,,

Future of Coastal zones   I think that the major emphasis for the future
development of our coastal zones should be for public uses?  with preservation
of large tracts of land in their natural state so that recreation,  scientific
study, aesthetic enjoyment and personal physical and mental  health may be
enhanced for the millions of citizens who already live along these  coastal
regions, and visitors from across the nation.

Best uses   The continuing phenomenal population growth of California, especially
along the coastal and estuarine areas, makes it imperative to look  to the long
range values of these areas.  If the suggested values  discussed above are valid,
then the best use for the greatest number of people is a restriction  of commercial
develop raent and a development of use areas for the public.   The plan developed
by the S.F.B.C.D.C. for  the S.F. Bay seems,to me,to closely approximate what
I consider the best use of this great estuary.

Management Systems  I think a regional system should administer the estuarine
area of S.F. Bay and that State and Federal agencies might  cooperatre on the
management of our estuarine resources.  For example, the establishment of a
U.S. Wildlife Refuge in South San Francisco Bay is presently being  proposed.
An area of approximately 16,000 acres is suggested by a committee chaired by
Mr. Paul McKeehan.  A bill (H.B. 2?^9) by eight local congressmen supports
the creation of such a federal refuge.  There are numerous  citizen's  groups
such as local Audubon Societies, Assoc. Sportsmen of California, Calif.
Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club and over 2^-0 Bay area Biological Scientists
who endorse this proposal.  Local jurisdictions such as Alameda Co.,  Hayward,
and the City of Fremont have also gone on record favoring this kind of use
for our estuarine resources.

Summary    A major ecologically stabilizing feature of our coastal  zones  in
California is the estuarine areas.  They may serve to enrich our  lives  by
providing a healthy environment not only for the wild plants and animals
which may abound there (if we but control our pollution),but,for man  himself.

olt Water
r«sh Water


eld Biology

                  P. O. BOX 97, MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941
                      Telephone: Area Code 415 - 388-1340
                           Joel F. Gustafson, PhD

                           February 18, 1969
Statement of Joel F. Gustafson, presented to public meeting on Water
Quality Management for Estuaries at San Francisco, California on February
18, 1969-

     My name is Joel F. Gustafson and my occupation is that of a Professor
of Ecology and Systematics at San Francisco State College.  I also serve
as the Associate Dean, School of Natural Sciences.  My statements here today
refer to my activities at the college, but I do not officially represent
the college.  I am also the owner of a consulting business titled "Resources
and Ecology Projects".

     We are very much concerned over the rapid disappearance of both salt
marshes and estuaries and lagoons.  Our concerns are based upon the signi-
ficance of these segments of the natural world as distinct and valuable
habitats as well as their importance to man as areas of recreation and a
host of less easily defended values.  We have some understanding of the
overall values of estuaries in marine biology, yet we are very weak in
specific information.  The generalization are easily formed.  However, with-
out specific facts for support we are open to many challenges opposing our
points of view.

     Many of us have been and are engaged in efforts to develop the breadth
and depth of our information regarding both estuaries and salt marshes.

     My first exhibit presents an action taken by the Pacific Coast Entomol-
ogical Society in 196?.  This Society established a "salt marsh habitat com-
mittee" of which I am chairman.  The Society has encouraged the submission of
notes and observations regarding salt marsh insects and other terrestrial
invertebrates to the editor of its journal - The Pan Pacific Entomologist.
Accepted articles will be printed without cost to contributors.   This action
is an obvious attempt to encourage both studies and the publication of data
regarding the salt marsh habitat.  Nearly 100 notices of this action have been
sent to other societies and groups with the suggestion that they might wish to
take similar actions.  This Society will attempt to emphasize studies of central

     Mr. Robert S. Lane is Rearing completion of a Master's degree program at
San Francisco State College.  His research involves a study of the insect-
populations of a salt marsh in South San Francisco Bay.  Currently this salt
marsh is leased by the National Audubon Society as a wildlife sanctuary.   The
study area is located immediately south of theDumbarton railroad bridge in
Alameda County.  Locally, nearly all of the vegetation of our salt marshes
consists of three species of plants.  The middle elevations are nearly entirely


                                                              February 18, 1969
Water Quality Statement                -2-                    Joel F. Gustafson

occupied by pickleweed.  This plant makes up the major proportion of our salt
marshes.  Aside from its several values of providing space, loafing grounds,
retreat and protection, it is the least valuable biologically of the three major
species of salt marsh plants.  The data being developed by Mr. Lane demonstrate
that the invertebrate populations associated with cordgrass are several times
higher than those produced by the other plants of the salt marsh.  Since the
insects are so important as food sources for birds in the estuarine habitat,
particular concern should be directed toward an understanding of the roles played
by those plants which support the highest insect population.  Today, cordgrass
makes up a very small percentage of our salt marsh areas.  The primary reason
for the small area occupied by cordgrass is the diking which encloses nearly all
of our bay area salt marshes.  Studies conducted at salt marshes in the southeast
and on the Atlantic coast have demonstrated an overwhelming importance of cordgrass
versus the other salt marsh plants (said studies were concerned with roles in
trophic food cycles).  Cordgrass is almost completely utilized by organisms of the
estuarine environment.  Only a portion of the pickleweed plants are similarly
utilized.  Mr. Guy Cameron, a graduate student at the University of California at
Davis is conducting a similar study to that of Mr. Lane.  Mr. Cameron is studying
a salt marsh area near Petaluma Creek on the shores of San Eablo Bay.  There are a
number of significant differences in the animals which Mr. Cameron is collecting
versus those which Mr. Lane has found.  Both of these students have secured the
very generous assistance of the same specialists in classification across the country.
Despite the close geographic approximation of these two salt marshes, there are sig-
nificant ecological differences between them.

    My second exhibit consists of a report (the second of three) concerning the
ecology of Bolinas Lagoon, Marin County, California.  This report contains data
on the utilization by fish of the lagoon and its one permanent stream.  Three
studies are summarized in this report.  That of Mr. Ken Adams concerns the rela-
tionships of larval fish occurring in tide flats supporting large concentrations
of a seaweed called sea lettuce.  Mr. Ed Fineman's data is concerned with a year-
long survey of fish utilizing a permanent stream which enters the lagoon.  I have
directed a year-long study of the fish populations in one of the two major drainage
channels in the lagoon.  All three of these studies have demonstrated the month by
month importance of these 3 kinds of waters to a variety of species of fish, all
of which are important either as game fish or as rough fish utilized by other wild-
life.  I direct your attention specifically to pages 9 to 12, which summarize data
concerning the organisms inhabiting mud flats and sand flats.  These species were
identified by members of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco.  The
data is based upon ^11 core samples at 31 stations located throughout the lagoon;
and pages 1*1- to 15 which summarize data on several species of clams, the most sig-
nificant finding being that nearly all clams are of a similar age - thers being
approximately 8 .years during which no year classes were successful.  The data on
fishes are summarized on pages 22-28.  The data clearly demonstrate the year-round
use of the lagoon by fish.  This contributes support to the concept that these shallow
waters are nursery grounds for wildlife.  Pages 29-3^ summarize data demonstrating
the utilization by shore birds and game birds during the winter months.

    These latter studies have appeared in a research contract report.  Portions of
several of them will be published in appropriate research journals.

    My last^ochibit refers to the work of Professor James Mackey of San Francisco
State College, which summarizes 3 years of study of Corte Madera Creek in Marin


                                                         February 18, 1969
Water Quality Statement             -3-                  Joel F. Gustafson

County.  His studies are concerned with the utilization of this creek by a
large number of fish.  Again, his data indicate that at frequent periods through-
out the year this creek, which empties into San Francisco Bay, is utilized by
different species of fish throughout the year.  Some of the fish spawn within
the fresh waters of the creek.  Some species hatch in the shallow estuarine waters
and utilize the creek water during portions of their larval life.  Again, the
evidence clearly demonstrates the significance played by subsections of this total
bay area environment on a year around basis.

    I am pleased to state that the flood control district of San Mateo County
and Santa Clara County have cooperated in an ecological approach in their planning
of a flood control program of San Francisquito Creek.  Necessary flood control
developments and the materials to be used will permit a co-existence of nature
and flood control developments if present efforts come to fruition.

    The U.St Army Corps of Engineers have scheduled a preservation of the natural
condition of the lower reaches of Corte Madera Creek in Marin County.  In the
flood control developments of this creek the corps has programmed a vegetation
redevelopment of the banks and shores.  The vegetation closest to the bay will be
native species of plants.  The vegetation in the other areas consist of species
which are important wildlife plants (food and shelter) and are also attractive
from the standpoint of landscaping.

    The last two illustrations demonstrate that ecologists can play an important
role in land-use planning when they have the facts to support their points of
view.  In regard to salt marshes, mud flats and shallow waters, the result of
our land-use planning must result in the setting aside of significantly important
areas for their ecological values.  We need many more facts to substantiate our
opinions regarding their value from an ecological standpoint.  If developed, I
an confident that the data will allow ecology to compete with industry and housing.



                               November  20, 1968


   Dear Sir:

        The following  notice is submitted  for publication.

                                 THE SALT  MARSH HABITAT

             A Special Project of the Pacific Coast  Entomological  Society

        At  a meeting in 1967 of the Pacific Coast  Entomological  Society, a

   lecture  on the ecology of the mud flat  - salt marsh habitat was presented.

   Following this meeting, a number of the members expressed concern regarding

   the rapid disappearance of this habitat due  to  commercial development.

   Subsequently, a salt marsh habitat committee was  appointed to stimulate

   studies  in central  California.

        The Society is now sponsoring publication  of notes  and observations  on

   salt marsh insects  (and other terrestrial arthropods)  for publications  in the

   Pan-Pacific Entomologist.  Articles should be submitted  to the editor of  the

   journal, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco,  California,  94118.

        An annotated bibliography of California species of  salt  marsh insects

   will appear in Volume 44, No. 4, 1968.

        It  is our hope that entomological  societies  in other geographic locations

   will undertake a similar interest and sponsorship of articles on the salt

   marsh habitat.
                                       Joel F. Gustafson, Professor
                                       Ecology and Systematics, SFSC
                                       Chairman, Salt Marsh Habitat Committee
                                       Pacific Coast Entomological Society

                ECOLOGICAL  STUDY
                                          l^^^'^ff"''-''^^^ ™~**
                                         ' -m^P^i^^,^^^ -^ *,,
      '~ ^

t^r^ ••^^^v^'^yty^v^^'^^^^Sjgfi
r.^*. ,-v.^  ^--•i^»."- H-*T.^*- ~^^~^ •"^'•'^^•'Vm'^S"'
                          Clam diggers between Pickleweed Island and Stinson Beach.
      J. F. GUSTAFSON, Ph.D.
      P.O. Box 97, Mill Valley, California
      October 3, 1968
Sections d, e.
Study supported by:
  Audubon Canyon Ranch
  Bolinas Harbor District
  County of Marin
  Marin Conservation League

There are 36 gaper clam siphon holes  within  this square meter. The 5-8" clams are
2-3' down in the muddy sand. The gaper is named Tresus nuttallii.


               Report number two
Acknowledgements t

     We are indebted to a very large number of individuals:
professional scientists, students and volunteer naturalists.
Their names are recognized in the appropriate sections.

     Special appreciation is expressed toi

        Mr. H. G. Orcutt, Department of Fish & Game,
          Marine Resources Operations Laboratory

        Professor Richard Doutt, University of California,

        Mr. Al Molina, Director of Bolinas Marine Laboratory
          and Chairman of the Biology Department, College of
          Marin, Kentfield

        Mr. Craig Hansen of the Bolinas Marine Laboratory

        and to students of College of Marin and San Francisco
        State College


Introduction . . ..................  1

Bottom Conditions (particle sizes) .........  2

Channels ......................  k

Scour, Erosion, Deposition .............  5

Lagoon Waters , Physical Characteristics .......  7

Invertebrate Populations ..............  9

Station Map ..................... 11

Station Data ............. ....... 12

Summary and Interpretation ............. 13

Kingsley Study - Bottom Invertebrates ........ 13

Molluscs ........... . .......... Ik

Payne Study - Molluscs ............... 15

Clam Reserve .................... 19

Transects - Bottom Invertebrates .......... 20

Fish - sharks and rays, stomach contents ...... 22
       bony fish surveys ....... ....... 2k
       bony fish, juveniles ............. 25
       Pine Gulch Creek  .............. 26
       juvenile stomach contents .......... 27
       nursery grounds ............... 28

Birds - shorebirds andother marine birds . ..... 29
        census, Doutt, et al ............ 29
        stomach contents .............. 33
Harbor seal
Marine plants. . . ......... . ....... 36
        Mannix, algae ................ 37
        Productivity of algae, Siegel ........ 39

Summary and Key Index Species ............ kj


     j.n a previous report (February 1, 1968) the history and nature of
Bolinas Lagoon were discussed.  In that report the marshland and upland
vegetation as well as dependent terrestrial vertebrates were discussed.

     This document, the second report on the "Ecological Study of Bolinas
Lagoon," will contain sections D and E of the RESOURCES AND ECOLOGY. PROJECTS
study contract.

     Section DJ Mapping of habitat areas in the lagoon
          1. Listing of marine invertebrates by habitat and role
          2. Listing of marine vertebrates
          3. Listing of marine plants by habitat

     Section Ei Key index species? importance in major trophic cycles,
                distribution frequency, role and sensitivity to pollutants.

     In the preparation of the report, it became clear at the outset that so
much information had been developed that it appeared more desirable to change
the arrangement of the subjects treated.

     Reference to the table of contents will disclose the more logical devel-
opment in covering the subjects.  The section on sensitivity to pollutants
will be treated in the following section F for the same reasons.

     A number of physical and chemical discussions are necessary as back-
ground information prior to presentations and interpretations of the field
work relating to the key species of the lagoon plant and animal life.

                              BOTTOM CONDITIONS

     The selection of 31 areas within the lagoon for sampling of inverte-
brate populations was made on the basis of criteria designed to provide the
widest possible sampling of the bottom life throughout the lagoon.

     The nature - the consistency - of the bottom is regarded as important
along with the quality of the water in determining the quantity and the
variety of life forms living within the bottom material.

     Sediment particle size measurements and percentages of the total
volumes were made for all but one of the stations.  In the latter instance
(station #16) over 25$ of the volume of each sample consisted of fragments
of tales, bulrush, sedges and other plant debris, with the major percent
(75^) being fine silt and fine organic fragments.

     Sediment collections were made on October 27, 196?, and November 10,
1967>  Samples were taken with a 10 em x 15 em piston corer (diameter and
length).  Samples were sieved through 5 ratal screen sieves of descending
mesh sites as followsi

Sieve Mesh sizes
inches millimeters

     Each sample was washed under a water faucet until no  further passage
of particles occurred.   Invertebrates were collected from  each  sieve and
then the contents were  examined as to color, texture and nature.   Some
station samples contained significant percentages of finely ground shell
fragments (primarily of clams and cockles.)

Station  Total  Sieves                               Remainder in fines,
          ee.    #1     #     #3     1**     #5     clays,  plant debris
   la     850             4-      4-      4-    0.02      0,98
   Ib     970    0.13   0.21   0.21   0.08   0.05      0.31*
   2     1000    0.10   0.15   0.13   0.06   0.25      0.32
   3      850    0.06   0.12   0.03   0.02   0.07      0.69
   i*     1100    0.03   0.15   0.16   0.10   0.20      0.37
   5     1200     4-       4-    0.01   0.01   0.17      0.81
   6     1100             4-      4-      4-    0.70      0.29
   7      950     4-       -      4-      4-    0.02      0.98
   8     1000     4-       -      4-      4-      4-       0.99
   9      900     -       -      4-      4-    0.01      0.98
  10     1200     -     0.01     4-      -    0.75      0.21*
  11      950     -       -      -      -    0.26      0.71*
  12     1000                           4-    0.03      0.96
  13     1100     -       4-      4-      4-0.59      0.1*0
  11*     1000    0.23   0.20   0.03     4-    0.01      0.53
  15      900     -       +      4-      4-    0.02      0.97
  17     1100     -       -      4-      4-0.73      0.27
  18      900    0.61   0.22   0.03     4-      4-       0.13
  19      900     -       -      -      4-    0.91*      0.05
  21     1000                           4-    0.1*0      0.60
  22     1250     4-       _      4-      4-    0.1*4      0.56
  23     1000             -      4-    0.02   0.25      0.73
  21*     1500     -       4-      4-      4-    0.1*0      0.59
  25     1100     4-     0.11*     4-    0.01*   0.61*      0.17
  26     1300     4-       4-    0.12   0.10   0.35      0.1*3
  27     1150     4-       4-      4-      4-    0.26      0.72
  31     1300           0.01     4-      4-    0.35      0.63
  32     1700                    4-      4-    0.35      0.61*

Clays are mineral particles finer than 0.002 mm in size.  It is apparent
that the very soft mud deposits of stations 21-27 contain a considerable
portion of fine  clays.   See map for location, description and  comments.
Totals do not always equal 10$ due to rounding off of figures.


     The following chart illustrates the changes that occur seasonally
within the lagoon.  The stations reported in this chart show that some
areas are relatively stable in so far as erosion or deposition are con-
cerned (e.g. f s 2, 7, 9 and possibly 5).  Some stations show significant
changes, especially 4*s 1?, 18, 19, 22 and 24.  The first stations are
sandy locations!  5 - near the old pier by Leonards place, 7 - west of
Pickleweed Island, 9 - the sand flat to the north of the island, and 2 -
the face of Kent Island.  Stations 1? and 19 are in the channel behind
Kent Island.  Stations 22 and 2k are near the intersection of Highway 1
and the Bolinas turnoff at the northern end of the lagoon (see station
                      Particle sizes, spring Tersus fall
                      Stations showing greatest changes

  Station               Sieve Sites
    *      Month   JL   JL   JL.   JL   JL     Rea<      Total

    2      Apr.    150   150   175    75   225     325       1,100
           Oct.    100   150   125    55   250     320       1,000

    5      Apr.      4     +     •»•    10    10    1076       1,100
           Oct.      -     +    12    10   200     977       1,200

    7      Apr.      +     +     +     +    50    1045       1»100
           Oct.      +     -     +     +    14     932         950

    9      Apr.                  +     +    20    1168       1,100
           Oct.                  +     +    10     882         900

   17      Apr.      .     +     +     +    25    1065       1,100
           Oct.      -     -     +     +800     296       1,100

   18      Apr.    140   150   250    50    75     435       1,100
           Oct.    550   200    25     +   .  +     121         900

   19      Apr.      +     +     +     +    10     983       1,000
           Oct.                  +     +   850      47         900

   22      Apr.      +     •»•     +     +    20    1075       1,100
           Oct.      +     -     +     +   550     692       1,250

   24      Apr.            ++    10    10     988       1,000
           Oct.      -     +     +     +600     889       1,500

     It is therefore quite apparent that we have both deposition and scour
(erosion) in a number of locations, seasonally within the lagoon.

     The Important question at this point is - are these seasonal changes
leading toward a significant change in the direction of circulation and
the amount of tidal waters contained.  That is, is the lagoon filling up
with sediment?  The answer is yes in many areas.  Seme degree of control
orer tidal scour is required to offset that of deposition.

                         CHANNELS IN BOLINAS LAGOON


     The bottoms and sides of the channels in a lagoon are subject to
considerable scouring - erosion - as the ebb (outgoing) tide gains its
maximum velocity.

     The most extreme case of this is shown at the month of the lagoon.
Here, during both incoming (flood) and outgoing (ebb) tides, the bottom
of the channel is much like a gravel chute.  Many tons of sand are lifted
up into the water while rocks and shell fragments are rolled in or out
along the channel floor.

     To lesser extents, all of the channels within the lagoon are swept
on each tide.  The bottoms tend to be muddy sand in the north (Olema) end,
becoming more coarse in texture and with the addition of more and more
shell fragments and pebbles (and less silty mud) as one approaches the
ocean side of Kent Island.

     The life on the deeper channel bottoms is limited - as one might
expect considering the abrasive movement of sand, shell fragments and rocks
during tidal flows.  In the more shallow channels, we find a marked increase
in living organisms, especially clams.  This increase - versus the popula-
tion on adjacent shallower flats - is probably due to the absence' of removal
by clam diggers.  These distributions will be further discussed in the sec-
tions on transects within the lagoon.

     In summary then, in this lagoon, there are no marked distinctions
other than those mentioned between the life or physical features of the
bottoms of the channels versus the adjacent sand or mud flats.


     Bottom samples in all major channels were taken with an Ekman dredge,
a clam-shell, spring-operated bucket with a 6" x 6" opening.

     Samples of 500 cc were placed in a plastic screen with one mm mesh
openings.  The screen was then folded into a bag and the material was
washed in lagoon water to remove the mud, sand and fine plant and shell

     Collections were labeled and preserved in ?0£ alcohol.

     No distinctions were noted in the station descriptions.  There were
no unaccountable variations in the animal life of the flats versus the
channels.  There were many more algae, especially Ulva spp. (sea lettuce)
and Enteromorpha spp. ("grass"), on the shallower flats while Graeilaria
(Mermaids hair) was more common within the shallow channels.

 Channel conditions  (converted from centimeters to the  nearest inch)
 Channel mouth  1-28-68j all others  7-20-68

 Channel mouth   Secchi disk 30 CM (!')»  depth  3 m (9*10lt)
  very  rocky,  large shell fragments,  some  sand,  no  organisms

 in front of post house on Stinson  Beach
  Secchi disk  90 cm (2'11"),  depth 90 em (2*11")
  sandy with some shell fragments, few  worms

 off indentation of  north  face of Pickleweed Island
  Secchi disk  210 cm (6*11"), depth 310 cm (10*2")
  sandy,  finely ground shell  fragments, few organisms

 off north center face of  Pickleweed Island
  Secchi  disk  210 cm (6*11"), depth 1010 (33*2")
  sandy,  finely ground shell  fragments, few organisms

 near Highway 1 on south side  of  sand  bar opposite oyster racks
  Secchi  disk  100 (3*3"),  depth  100 (3*3")
  sandy mud with large quantities  of  Ulva, many  crustaceans, some worms
  unable  to get bottom sample without Ulva

 in Olema  end in line with  dump,  end of  2nd gravel bank on Highway 1, and
WilMns Barn
  Secchi  disk  and depth  40 cm (V)
  muddy with plant  fragments,  amphipods common

 off Flow  meter in center  of Olema  end
  Secchi  disk  100 cm (3'3"),  depth 210  cm  (6fllM)
  muddy,  sand,  shell fragments,  plant debris, few organisms

 off north end  of big duck  blind  in Olema end
  Secchi  disk  105 cm (3*5"),  depth 450  cm  (1W)
  sand,  shells, plant debris,  few  organisms

 off Flow  meter on Highway  1 near Audubon Canyon  Ranch
  Secchi  disk  105 cm (3*5"),  depth 210  cm  (6»11")
  fine sand, shells, plant fragments, few  organisms

 off oyster rack on west side  of  sand bar
  Secchi  disk  120 cm (3'3")»  depth 210  cm  (6'11")
  fine sand, shell  fragments,  few worms  and amphipods

                           Scour, Erosion, Deposition

     The  dynamics of circulation within the lagoon are much like a large
partly filled down pillow.  The  contents (water in this case) and flow will
shift from one area to another as  subtle changes in the bottom occur.

      Any deposition on the bottom of a channel will slow the flow of water
through that channel.  At the same time, this will be compensated for by an


increase in now in one or acre of the other channels.   The flood tide - so
named because it floods the land - is not as fast moving or as capable of
scouring or eroding as the ebb (out-going) tide.   The reason for this  is
especially well shown in a lagoon.  The tides rise and fall more quickly
offshore (because of lack of restrictions) than within the lagoon.   The
speed of the incoming waters is exceeded by the speed of the outgoing  waters.
This is due to the rapid fall of the Bollnas Bay, offshore waters,  and a
delayed runout of the Bolinas Lagoon waters.  In  a rather casual timing, it
appears that low tide within the lagoon is delayed for over one and one half
hours beyond that of the ocean.  Consequently, erosion and subsequent  depos-
ition are more pronounced on the outgoing versus  the incoming tides.   Accord-
ing to the U.S. Geological Survey the velocity of the outgoing tide is l£
times that of the incoming for Bolinas Lagoon.

   This phenomenon was indicated very clearly within the lagoon during the
past year - July, 196?, to July, 1968.  The channel behind (north of)  Kent
Island, that also extends along the town of Bolinas, was subjected to  con-
siderable deposition during the winter of 1967-8.  This was most evident in
the channel just north of the flow meter.  Here,  sometime between February
21 and March 20, 1968, some 1 meter (3*) of sandy material was deposited
within the channel.  By April of 1968 this newly  deposited material started
to move out of the lagoon.  By July a 60 cm (2*)  channel was reestablished
against the south bank.  This channel was shallow but not as shallow at the
same area in July of 196?.  The Olema end of this channel which connects with
a large channel near the big duck blind, was about l'-2* deep at mid-tide
last year.  This year, it has not yet (August) been possible to take an out-
board up that end of the channel except at high tides.   Along Highway  1 lead-
ing from Stinson Beach toward Olema, collecting stations that were mostly
rocky prior to November 18, 196?t became quite muddy and remained so until
after March of 1968.  In this case, the rocky road-fill area was covered with
silt in winter.  In late spring, the silt was removed by tidal scour.

   During this same period, there was a diverted  flow of a greater amount
of water that had to escape from the lagoon by way of the channel along
Highway 1 and across the north face of Fickleweed Island, a small island
opposite Leonard's place.  From December, 196?, to April, 1968, the north
face of the island was eroded some V.  By July this island had lost some
6* from the north face.  This area now receives the major outflow of the
southeast and northwest ends of the lagoon.  Due  to the increased velocity,
as described previously, the island is being cut  away on its north face.

   A similar degree of erosion and deposition occurs seasonally at the
channel mouth.  The shape and extent of the west  end of Stinson Beach  under-
goes great seasonal change.  These changes are being studied by the U. S.
Geological Survey.

   In the previous report (February 1, 1968) I stated that I believed  that
the primary sources ef sediments now filling the  bay were obtained from
the Bolinas Mesa bluff and from Stinson Beach.   In the latter case,



 sand movement was by both tide and wind into the lagoon.  A report soon
 to be released by the U.S. Geological Storey will present a mass of data
 that supports this opinion.

     It is clear at this time that some degree of water flow control by
 man is indicated if we desire to maintain the lagoon in its best physical
 and biological condition.  This last sentence is stated in the belief that
 given proper planning, and funding for manipulative devices, there is ade-
 quate space within the lagoon for boating, a harbor, wildlife preserves
 and fishing.

                                Lagoon Waters

     Measurements of water conditions of the lagoon were made November 24,
 1967, January 28 and February 23, 1968.

     These measurements were made at the request of the U.S. Geological


     Conductivity-Salinity-Temperature measurements were made with a Model
 RS5-3 Salinometer, Industrial Instruments, Inc.  Conductivity was measured
 in odllimhos/cm, salinity in 0/00, temperature in °Centigrade.  Wind measure-
 ments were taken with a Dwyer Wind Meter.  Turbidity (suspended material in
 water) was measured with a Secchi disk.  Temperature of air and water were
 measured with a mercury thermometer.


     A selection of the data provided to the U.S. Geological Survey is
 included.  This data shows a very similar condition of the water throughout
 the lagoon.  Temperatures and salinity are virtually the same at the surface
 and at the bottom.

     Winds of only a few miles per hour may cause turbidity (lift of mud
 and debris from the bottom) over the shallow mud flats and sand flats.
Winds of 8-12 m.p.h. may cause turbidity readings of only 10-15 cm deep
 over mud flats.  Winds in excess of 16 m.p.h. will produce turbidity of
 10 em or less.

     Turbidity in the lagoon is always high.  Clouded waters are typical
 in this lagoon.  Except over sandy bottoms, turbidity levels are about
 half that of the depth, even when winds are less than 5 m.p.h.  At 10-12
 m.p.h. turbidity levels are half the depth over mud flats, at more than
 16 m.p.h. turbidity levels are 1/4 or less the depth - depth being 40-100

     A mild rain - a drizzle of several days in January, 1968 - did not
 reduce the salinity to any significant degree.

     Driving rains  of several days duration in February,  1968,  caused a
reduction in salinity of one third to one half (.l£-.2$)  that of normal
levels (.350.


     Runoff of fresh water from the creeks entering the lagoon was not as
significant in salinity reduction as the much larger volume of general
surface runoff from all of the surrounding uplands.
                    Bolinas Lagoon, Water Conditions
Conduct-  Salin-
ivity      ity    Water   Air
        Secchi   Depth
Wind   Disk, cm   em
Nov. 24, 196?
Jan. 28, 1968
Feb. 23, 1968
Bolinas Channel
Nov. 24, 196?
Jan. 28, 1968
Feb. 23, 1968
Big Duck Blind
Nov. 24, 1967
Jan. 28, 1968
Feb. 23, 1968
Flow Meter, Olema
Nov. 24, 1967
Jan. 28, 1968
Feb. 23, 1968
lagoon surf ace i
" bottom
Flow Meter, H. 1
Nov. 24, 1967
Jan. 28, 1968
Feb. 23, 1968
Pickleweed Island
Nov. 24, 1967
Jan. 28, 1968
Feb. 23, 1968
Seadrift bridge
Nov. 24, 1967
Jan. 28, 1968
Feb. 23, 1968
































8-10 SW

8-12 SW

10 S

18-22 S


22 S

10-16 S

10-16 SW










2.1 m









                         INVERTEBRATE POPULATIONS


     Bearing in Bind that  there are some 600 acres of lagoon  (in addition
 to some  1,100 acres of Marshland) in Bolinas Lagoon, a method of sampling
 the bottom life was necessary.

     We  used a standard random-grid method.  Grids consisted  of 3 lines or
 transects, 3 meters apart.   Collections were made at every 3  meters along
 each of  the lines.
                                     ^^3 meters
                  x— x— — x— x— x— — x
                                         3 meters
                  x— — x— -x— x— -x— — x

                                         collections made  at each x
                  x— x— x— -x— — x— x

     A deliberate bias was introduced in selecting the positions of the
 stations throughout the lagoon.  Since the egrets and herons  feed so fre-
 quently in the northwest or Olema end of the lagoon, one-third of the
 stations were established there.  All stations were established on  the
 basis of geography, the nature  (texture) of the bottom and position in
 regard to shorelines and drainage channels.  The intent was that we should
 sample as many distinctly different areas as possible. (See map following)


     A piston-core sampler was designed.  This consisted of a brass tube
 10 cm. in diameter and 15 cm long (k" x 6").  A plunger and rod in  the
 upper end forced the sample material out of the tube.  Samples were col-
 lected at every 3 meters according to the grid plan previously described.
 Samples or cores were placed immediately in 2* square plastic screens.
 The screen mesh size was approximately 1 mm (1/25 of an inch).  The screens
were then folded into a bag and  sloshed or washed up and down in lagoon
water to remove the mud and sand.  The remaining substance was then placed
 in a jar, preserved in 10$ formalin and labeled as to location and date.

     Graduate students at San Francisco State College sorted  the organisms
 from the rocks, shells, algae, etc.  The specimens were then  sorted in the
 first approximation at classification.  Each kind was counted and volumes
were calculated by fluid displacement.  Each kind was placed  in vials in
 separate jars by stations.  This sorted material was then taken to the
 California Academy of Sciences.

     Under the direction of Mr. Allyn Smith and Mr. Dnstin Olivers and Mr.
William Light, species determinations were made.  Mr. James Carlton identi-
 fied the amphipods.  Others in the Academy assisted in identification.



 Tke  species were then tabulated by ne as to station and frequency of
 occurrence.  I  an solely responsible for the interpretations of the data.

     Particles  were  sized at  each station, as described in the .-previous

     Four hundred and eleven  cores were obtained fron  31 stations as followsi

        a. stations  16,  21-29, 32 «  6 cores each

        b. station 15 t  9  cores

        e. stations  1-lfc, 17-19, 25, 31 i  18 cores each

     Stations in group "c"  were samples according to plan.

     Station 15 extended into water too deep to collect, and so only 3
 samples were obtained on each transect.

     Stations in group "a"  were located in extremely soft mud.  Movement in
 this sloppy, soft material  was extremely difficult.  We wore chest high
 waders, walked  on our knees,  and held onto a boat or canoe for partial  sup-
 port in these areas.   Under these conditions, we quickly decided to use
 only 1 of each  of the 3  transects planned for each station.  Although sta-
 tions  18, 25 and 31 were in this area too, there were  sufficient rocks  and
 other  materials in these locations to allow the full 18 core sampling.

     The  dimensions  of the  eorer were selected because discussions with a
 number of experienced marine  zoologists all agreed thatt most of the life
 involved  in trophic  food cycles - consumption by birds and fish - would be
 surface formst  a larger  number of smaller diameter cores would give a better
 sampling  (statistically) than a smaller number of large diameter cores.
 Consequently we decided  on  the eorer, as described, and a series of grid
 samples,  as described, as the methods most likely to produce the most valid
 sample of the life that  was the most significant ecologically.

     The  distributions of the invertebrates did show definite relationships
with the  ratios  of mud to sand.  However, the distributions of the species
 of invertebrates within  an  area appeared to be random.



                             STATION DATA

                                           Invertebrates   Cores collected

Station dumber and Consistency             Collected       and sited	

sandy, shell fragments
sandy, shell fragments
sandy-rocky, shell fragments
very rocky with sand & pebbles , shell f .
rocky & muddy, sand, plant fragments
W ft It It It
sandy with some mud
" " " shell fragments
more mud, plant fragments
•I n « n
M tt M n
» it tt it
sandy, shell fragments
sandy, " "
very rocky, mud, sand, shell & plant f .
sandy, some plant fragments
mucky, £ to f plant debris and mud
sandy & mud, fine shell fragments
rocky & sand, mud, plant fragments
sandy & mud, fine shell fragments
mucky, plant fragments
ff n n
pebbles, muck and plant fragments
ft it n n
rocks, pebbles, sand and mud
small rocks, sand & mud, plant fragments
mucky & plant fragments
rocks, mud, shell and plant fragments

                                                            not done

There were no stations numbered 20 and 30.


Summary and Interpretation
     I estimated the relative ecological importance of the bottom organism*
on the following basest

           a. relative abundance at more than 5 stations
           b. frequence of occurrence in fish stomachs
           c. frequence of occurrence in bird stomachs
           d. information obtained from the scientific literature

     On the basis of the criteria listed above, a selection has been made
of the "key or index" species within the bottom (substrate) of the lagoon.

     Many other organisms are abundant at several areas throughout the
lagoon.  At this time however, I am not able to assess a high level of
importance ecologically to them since I lack the necessary information
for such judgement.  All life within the lagoon must have a role some-
where in the overall picture.  Not enough is known as to who does what
to what or to whom or when.  There are many subjects here for future
studies.  In no sense do I discount the biological value of any life form.

     We obtained over <& species of segmented worms (annelid), several
species of ribbon worms (Nemertea), 2 species of loph worms (Fhoronida),
19 species of crustaceans, 3 species of insects (Arthropod*), 16 species
of clams and snails (Mollusca) and several species of small phyla.  This
list is small when compared to that we could have obtained say at the
adjoining Duxbury Reef.  But then, lagoons are typical for having very
large numbers of a small number of species.

     No attempt was made to sample the organisms of the salt marsh or
shore above the high tide line.  We did not collect on piles or floats.
Our study was directed toward an analysis of the mud flat and sand flat.

     Additional studies are now under way by several graduate students
at San Francisco State College.  When these studies are complete, over
1,^00 core samplings will have been made in mid flats, sand flats and salt
marsh habitats.  These are additional studies, not included under the
present study.

     Another bottom study made by Rembert Kingsley, a candidate for the
master of arts degree at San Francisco State College, compared the invert-
ebrate populations found in the mud flats adjacent to cord grass, Spartina
foliesa, with those in front of pickleweed, Salleornia Virginia.


     Collections were made at 2 week intervals from 3-28-66 to 11-4-66.
Three, square meter plots were established in the mud flats immediately in
front of two beds of the above-named salt marsh plants.  Each square meter was
divided into 25 areas.  Each area was numbered.  A random table of numbers
was established for sampling.  Ten 8-ounce beer can core*  were collected from

each station on each sampling date - a total of 320 cores were obtained.
Cores were sieved through a 20 x 20 inch mesh screen under running water.
Specimens were preserved for later identification to species.


     There was a much greater abundance of life in the nod in front of the
cord grass than that in front of the pickleweed.  This difference is best shown
by the polychaete worm, Lubrineris sonata.  Fifty-five of these worms were
obtained from the cord grass mud flat, while only 1 was obtained from the
pickleweed mud flat.  Similar findings were obtained also for amphipods and
mud crabs.

     Mrs. Kingsley is ndd-way in a year-long comparative study of the bottom
organisms in drainage canals of cord grass and pickleweed areas.

     We suspect that we will find a similar difference in the relative abun-
dance of bottom organisms.  The purpose of these studies is to show the
relative wildlife values of salt marsh plants and their adjacent mud flats.
At this time, cord grass areas appear to be much more important in terms of
food production values.  The pickleweed areas have other values such as pro-
viding retreat and loafing grounds, as well as a minor role in food product-


     Clams, cockles and mussels are filter feeders - straining particles
out of the water.  Mussels are attached to rocks, floats, piers, etc.
Cockles are buried a short distance in the bottom.  The 7 kinds of clams
occur from surface positions down to 3 of more feet (90f em).

     Many molluscs have been collected.  We were concerned with their loca-
tion, frequency, age and any other observations that we could note, e.g.,
relationship to bottom conditions.

     The following data show a very uneven age distribution of four species.

          Of 1^6 gaper clams, Tresus nuttallii ,
           none at stations 21-32, primarily in sandy-mud stations
           age:  range 5 (2 specimens), 15 (2 specimens), most 10-13,
                 median age 11 years
           lengthst  7-20 cm, most 14— 15t median 14- cm
           weights:  67-1000 gms, most 375-600, median ^75 g«s

          Of 197 Washington clams, Saxidomus nuttalli
           none at stations 21-32, primarily in sandy-mud stations
           ages  5-14- , most 11-12, median 11 years
           lengths 8-18 cm, most 11.5-12, median 12 cm.
           weights i  50-950 gms, most 300-450, median 375 gas

          Of 205 cockles,  Clinoeardium nuttallii
           none at stations 21-32, primarily in road fill along Highway 1,
           south of Andubon Canyon Ranch
           agei   1 (2 specimens),  10 (1 specimen), most 4-5,  median 5 years
           length:  2.5-5*5 cm, most 4-5,  median 4- cm
           weightst  5-65 gms, most 15-30, median 25  gms


     The uneven representation in age in the gaper and Washington elans is
as yet unexplained.  Praser and Smith (reported in Ricketts & Calvin 19^9,
p. 26?) examined 2600 British Columbia Saxidomus giganteus.  They reported
that aside from a larger number at 7 years, that the age distribution from
U-10 years was fairly even.

     MacGinitie & MacGinitie (p. **9, 19**9) feel that larval clams are con-
sumed by the many predators (including their parents) before they have time
to establish themselves.  That is, the larval clams could establish them-
selves only in a new unoccupied area.  Most of the larvae are of course
washed out to sea by the tides.  This concept appears attractive when one
recalls the even aged appearance of mussels, barnacles and the large clams.
However, the idea looses support when one considers the very large number
of individuals of many species of worms and crustaceans that co-exist, all
in the same area.  Surely we cannot assume that all of the organisms in a
lagoon are the same age.  I have no explanation for the unevenness of age
groupings in the larger clams.

     Fraser and Smith (Rieketts & Calvin, p. 2^1, 1952) also made a study
on the age composition of 760 basket cockles, Clinoeardium nuttallii.  Most
of them were 3 or ^ years old, none more than 7 years.  Fraser suspects that
the larvae settle on the sublittoral zone and migrate upward - inshore - on
reaching 2 or 3 years of age.

     This may be a more likely explanation.  It is well known that lagoon
organisms also occur at many locations along the coastline.  It may be that
the survival of migration is high only in lagoons.  There is as yet no evi-
dence for this opinion.

     There are distinct relationships to the molluscan populations and the
particle size and nature of the bottom sediments.

     Of the four prominent molluscs, all are more numerous in stations con-
sisting of sandy mud bottoms.  None are present in muddy bottom areas.  Fewer
are present in sandy and rocky areas.  This would indicate a preference - or
rather a higher survival - of those larvae that settle on serai-coarse bottom

     Since many of the game species of molluscs produce and release their sex
cells in August, it is possible that the plowing of appropriate areas could
greatly increase the larval survival rate on newly upturned coarse bottoms.

Mollusc Studies - Mrs. G. Payne

     Six stations have been sampled for molluscan populations for a full year
period by Mrs. Payne.  The method followed that of Gustafson, pgs. 1 and 9>
In this case, stations consisted of 3 transects, each line of stations being
1 meter apart.  The station consisted of 18, 1 m  stations.  Sampling was
determined by rolling a die to select which meter was to be sampled.  A sim-
ilar piston rod cover was used for obtaining each sample.

     Stations were selected to expand the nature and geography of those pre-
viously selected.  Stations 51-5k were rocky, road fill areas along the side
of Highway 1 (see map), Station 55 was on the south end of Pickleweed Island.
Station 56 was some 100 m northeast of the flow meter in the Bolinas channel,
behind (north of) Kent Island.



     Monthly data was obtained.   Notations were nade as to the frequency
of occurrence of dead, juvenile  and adult species of mollusks.   Specimens
less than i* in length were recorded as juveniles.   Most of the specimens
located at these stations (near  high tide line) were juveniles.  .Does
this mean that the juveniles migrate to deeper locations (in regard to tide),
or does this mean that many juveniles cover extensive areas and that survival
to adult stages occur at deeper  (lower) levels?

     In this study 252 cores were collected and analyzed.

     All species determinations  were confirmed by Mr. Allyn Smith of the
California Academy of Sciences,  San Francisco, California.

     Condition of tides, cloud cover, air and water temperatures were re-
corded for each collection.  The station study areas did not sample known
populations of other mollusks.  The larger clams - Washington and gaper  -
occur at many locations but at greater depths than these study areas. Sim-
ilarly, the attractive snail, Olivella biplicata occurs in some sandy bottom
locations at deeper zones.  An additional number of mollusks occur on pilings,
posts, etc.  These populations were not sampled.  The proceeding lists and
data then, are to be regarded as information relative to the 6 stations

      Aeanthina spirata  (Blainville)             occasional
      Acmaea digitalis Escholtc
      Aemaea paradigitalis                           "
      Cerastoma foliatum CMartyn)
      Cerethidea  californiea  (Haldeman)          abundant
      Clinocardium nuttalli (Con.)                   "
      Cryptomya californiea (Con.)                   "
      Gemma, gemma Totten                        occasional
      littorina seutulata Gould                 abundant
      Maeoma ineenspieua (Brod. & Sow.)          rare
      M. inquinata~(Deshayes)                    rare
      M. nasuta (Conrad)                        abundant
      M. secta (Conrad)                          occasional
      Meretrix lusoria                           rare
      Hya arenaria Idnne                           "
      Mytilas edulls  Ilnne                       abundant
      Nassarius mendieus cooper! (For.)          occasional
      Olivella biplieata Sowerby                 abundant
      Panope generpsa Gould                     rare
      Pododesmus maerosehisma (Deshayes)         rare
      Protothaea  staadnea (Conrad)               abundant
      Saxjdomus nuttalli (Conrad)                abundant
      Tapes japonica  (Deshayes)                     "
      T. seaddeeussata                           occasional
      Tegula funebralis  (A. Adams)               rare
      Thais canalieulata (Duclos)                occasional
      T. emarginata  (Deshayes)                   rare
      T. lamellosa (Qmelin)                      occasional
      Tresus nuttallii (Conrad)                  abundant

H •




       NO  (M  H
       0  H  0
                 00  H

                                     H  >o




   Sec. 1— Grid
   Sec. 2
   Sec. 3

Station £52
   Sec. 1
   See. 2
   See. 3

Station £53
   Sec. 1
   Sec. 2
   Sec. 3

Station £5fr
   Sec. 1
   Sec. 2
   Sec. 3

Station £55
   Sec. 1— Grid
   See. 2
   Sec. 3

Station £56
   Sec. 1
   See. 2
   See. 3

                             November 1967            March 1968

                6       solid gravel             sandy mud to snail gravel
                        loose rock and gravel      "
                        mud, few rocks           blue mad to med. gravel
                        rocky gravel
                        gravel to nmd
                        nod on gravel
                        gravel,  little mud
                        loose rock on mud
                        gravel on mud
                        rocks on gravel
                        gravel on mud
                        wud on rocks
                        sandy mud
                        all sandy silt
                                                 sandy mud to med. gravel
                                                 viscous mud to sm. gravel
                                                 sandy bl. mud to med. gravel
                                                   "        "   "  "     "
                                                 viscous mud to med. gravel
                                                 sandy grey mud on med. gravel
                                                 sandy mud
                                                 all sandy silt
Notet  Station £56 was originally located denmslope from a 3-foot berm.
Sometime between February 21 and March 20, the entire station was covered
over with three feet of silty sand so that now the station is level with
the pickleweed area upshore.  This station was also extending into a leg
of the channel and this leg has filled in, leaving the station about twenty
yards from the channel.  This explains why no organisms were found in the
collection of March 20, but by April 8, there was evidence by the collection
and by the presence of holes, that the marine animals were populating the
* page 7 of Payne report to J. F. Gustafson


A clam reserve No. 8 was established by the California Dept.  of Fish and Game
on August 15, 1955* The boundaries of this clam preserve aret  all lands
in the lagoon not designated in a previous oyster permit.  The latter
boundaries'are the same as these used by Audubon Canyon/Ranch and the
Bolinas Harbor District in establishing the wildlife sanctuary area for
the protection of the  egrets and herons.  The clan preserve 0$termination
is still'in effect.
 /!]!•:    .'f   ^CXl/"
I  r   :    /-  /^f^i.



Transects - additional to 31 coring stations

     Transect walks were made over the muddy sand flats, sand flats of the
lagoon and by canoe and skiff over mad flat areas.  These walks were designed
to check the validity of the placement of the 31 stations at which cores were
made and the extent of certain beds of bottom animals and the extent of sand
versus sandy mud versus mud bottoms throughout the lagoon.  These activities
were necessary as an additional check as to the wildlife importance of the
various regions of the lagoon and  its marshes.

     Transects were lines "drawn" between points.  Square meter frames with
cross lines at 20 cm intervals were carried.  At intervals of 10 or 30 or
100 meters, depending upon the abundance of the bottom life and the size of
the flat, the square meter frame was placed on the bottom and the organisms
(or more properly, their tubes or holes) were counted.

     On most occasions, the transects were made by me.  On several, Mr. Bruce
Luke, a candidate for the masters degree at San Francisco State College as-
sisted me, and on two occasions a team of four made simultaneous parallel
walks across some of the broader flats.  The two additional walkers, Stephen
Siegel and Kenneth Adams, were also candidates at San Francisco State College
for the masters degree.

     On the basis of these transects we noted thatt

     The beds of gaper clams extend from the muddy sand bars about -| mile
south of Audubon Canyon Ranch to the Stinson sand spit, across the shores
and channels to the east, south and west of Kent Island.  The large sand
flats east of Kent Island have very few or no gaper clams.  A few gapers
occur in the Bolinas channel behind Kent Island.
     The triangular muddy sand flat south of Audubon Canyon Ranch and along
side Highway 1 contains very few gaper clams and only a few Washington clams.
Local clam diggers tell ae that the clams "went out when the ghost shrimp
came in."  This probably is & coincidence.  The island has received a very
heavy harvest by elaia diggers.  It is probable that the clams were harvested.
The blue ghost shrimp population here is 9, 122, 30, 15i 4-2 (holes to be
divided by 2), averaging <±3/sq. meter, while the adjacent shore along the
road was 108, 88, 160, 66, averaging 52/sq. meter.  The flat also supports
large populations of assphipod and amd crab crustaceans.

     The large sandy flat at right angles to the above island and extending
over to the large duck blind is very low in its invertebrate population.
Four transects yielded a count of no clams.  Beds of phoronid worms, amphi-
pods and joint worms were noted as distinct beds on this large sand flat.

     The bsds of Washington clams extend from the sand bars about -^ mile
south of Audnben Csrsyon Ranch and a short distance toward Kent Island and
then south and southeast to the Stinson sand spit.

     ?h* bwivc nosed elaas and other small clams are distributed in similar
   &s b»3-t a/rtend farther in all directions.



     The little neck elans and the and cockles are restricted almost entirely
to the rocky road fill of Highway 1 from the shore opposite the wreckage of
the dredge behind Stinson Beach and north toward Audubon Canyon Ranch.

     Blue ghost shrimp occur in the same areas as that listed immediately
above, and across the north end of Piekleweed Island and throughout its
adjacent flats close to tidal channels.  The major beds of this shrimp occur
on the delta of Pine Gulch Creek, extending south from the end of the creek
and toward the Bolinas Channel north of Kent Island.  The blue ghost shrimp
is also common on the muddy sand flats east of Kent Island.

     Large beds of phoronid worms, Phoronopsis viridis, occur in muddy sandy
flats immediately north of channel north of Piekleweed Island, and in beds
in shallow channels immediately south, and southwest of Piekleweed Island,
and in shallow channels north of "Post House," and north of the west end of
the lagoon inside the sand spit.  Large beds of the joint worm, Axiotbella
rubroeineta, were found in the sand flats west and southwest of Piekleweed
Island as well as common in the flats east and northeast of Kent Island.

     Neither ef these worms were adequately sampled in our 31 coring stations.
Phorordds were counted up to 1^0/sq. mi joint worms occurred up to 9600
worms/sq; m.  Amphipods were counted at numbers up to 12,210/sq. m.

     The Pine Gulch Creek delta supports a number of distinct "beds" of life.
Mattings of algae, termed varves, occur alongside the several branches of the
creek mouth as it subdivides and distributes its minor flow over the delta.
Had crabs, Hemigrapsus eregonensis, occur in very large numbers between the
mats of the algae.  To the north and east, the percent of mud (to sand) in-
creases rapidly as does also the population of amphipod crustaceans.  To the
south we found large beds of blue ghost shrimp, intermixed with few to large
numbers of mud crabs.  All of the delta is a very rich wildlife food source.
Large numbers of seagulls, shorebirds, coots and egrets and herons can be
observed feeding there.

     The data of the transects when combined with that of the 31 coring sta-
tions demonstrate an overwhelming abundance of invertebrate life.  Less value
is attributed to the mudflats (stations 21-32 at the Olema end of the lagoon)
in contrast to the sandier flats adjacent to Kent Island and between Pickle-
weed Island and SE to SW toward Stinson Beach.

     The impression that we have seen again and again is the greater abundance
of the bottom life in those regions adjacent to channels.  We are drawn toward
the opinion that ideally, the greatest production would be obtained with a
series of low rectangular flats, bordered by channels up to 6* (about 2 meters)
in depth.
MacGinitie, G. E. A Nettie MacGinitie  19^9  Natural History of Marine Animals.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Ricketts, E. F. 4 Jack Calvin  19*9  Between Pacific Tides.  Stanford University


 Fish - sharks and rays

      Leopard sharks,  Triakis semifaseiata,  dogfish,  SqualuL
 and bat stingrays,  Myliobatis californicus,  were caught by fish and line,
 set hooks, and set  lines.   Unproductive methods attempted were by nets,
 seines and electric shocking.  From ^0 to 300 hooks were  used by 3 to 10
, fishermen.  On five dates,  ^ or more fishermen obtained no fish!   One of
 these dates was in  winter,  two were in spring and two were in stunner.  On
 one of the summer dates there was a strong wind.  The weather was "good"
 on the other days with no fishing success.

      The sharks were with one exception all  leopard sharks.   All stingrays
 were bat stingrays.

      All fish were  identified, sexed, measured, condition of female gonads
 recorded and stomach contents obtained, preserved, and  later identified  at
 San Francisco State College.   Specialists at the California Academy of
 Sciences confirmed  identifications.  I am indebted to Mr. and Mrs.  Hubert
 Calahan and the family and relatives of Mr.  and Mrs. Walter Josephs for
 many days of assistance on the clam and fish studies.

 Shark data:  83 specimens,  Oct. and Dec. of  196?, Feb., March and May of 1968

    Total lengths measured in cm.
      of 52 females, 3^ w«re less than 100 cm, range f&-99 cm, gonads immature
        of 18 over 100 cm,  range 101-128 cm,  9 had gravid  ovaries
            b of those.-had young numbering 12, 12, 12, 21

      of 31 males, 20 were less than 100 cm,  range 59-97.5 em
            11 were  more than 100 cm, range 100.5 to 121 cm

    Stomach contents!
      of 83 stomachs, 6 were empty,total contents ^906 cc, average 59.1 cc

      principal foodsi
        red ghost shrimp occurred in 35 stomachs
        blue ghost shrimp occurred in 15 stomachs
        cancer crabs occurred in 25 stomachs, probably eaten outside the  lagoon
        unidentifiable crustaceans in 7 additional stomachs
        worms, all species,  in 11 stomachs
        Washington clam siphon tubes in 7 stomachs
        gaper clam siphon tubes in 22 stomachs
        small oetopi in 2 stomachs
        unidentified molluscs (in addition) in 7 stomachs
        fish in 7 stomachs
        fish egg masses in 6 stomachs
        algae in 2 stomachs
        rocks in 1 stomach


      The principal  foods are crustaceans and molluscs.  Sharks may be
 opportunistic according to some reports, but our data show them to be



s elect ire feeders.  Surprisingly absent were the very eonmcm mid crabs
and shore crabs.  Also surprisingly low in consumption were fish.

     The one dogfish obtained was a young 82 em long female, ovaries were
gravid, stomach was empty.

Bat stingray data!
    23 specimens, Oct. of 196?, Feb., March, April,  May and June of 1968

    Measurements refer to maxianm width in cm, tip to tip of pectoral  fins.
      of 16 femalest  all 6 less than 100 cm wide, were immature,  range
                         42-83 cm
                      all 10 more than 100 cm wide were gravid,  range
                         100-117 em
      of 7 males, range was 64-9^ cm wide
      of 23 stomachs, none were empty

         Total contents:  373^ 

We considered the possibility of their being active at night.  However,
6 of us in tiro boats (at night) with a variety of surface and below-surface
lights (both unite and ultra violet) saw no ghost shrimp.  We saw aany mud
crabs - active, but no ghost shrimp or worn activity.  Many snail fish
(seulpins, perch, smelt and sanddabs) were seen.  Several sharks were noted.
Is it possible that sharks follow bat stingrays - allowing the bat to dig
up the shrimps and clams which the sharks consume after driving (?) the
bats away?  Unfortunately,the waters of Bolinas Lagoon are too turbid to
investigate this idea.  It remains however, leopard sharks feed principally
on crustaceans and molluscs that normally are 1-3* deep within the sandy

Pish - beny fish

     There is a concept that lagoons and estuaries serve as important nursery
grounds for the young of many species of marine life.

     In this connection we have initiated a number of studies.  Students at
the College of Marin and San Francisco State College have undertaken studies
involving hundreds of man hours.

     We selected a location at a drainage creek (McKinnan Gulch) by Leonards
Place - on Highway 1, opposite Pickleweed Island.  This selection was made
after a number of seine hauls at locations throughout the lagoon.  The station
selected is a main point of convergence of ebb tides and similarly of diver-
gence of the incoming flood tides.

     Using a seining net of £" mesh, 6' x 35'» three seine hauls were made
on each collection, one each on the north, west and south sides of a rocky
proadntory.  Fishes were sorted and identified.  Typically 5 individuals of
each species were placed in 10$ formalin.  Shortly thereafter, the stomachs
were removed.  Contents were studied preliminarily at San Francisco State
College.  Further studies at the California Academy of Sciences carried the
identifications as far as their (digested) condition permitted.

     Collections for the first two months were made by Mr. Ron Nolan.  There-
after, collections were made by Mr. Craig Hansen of the Bolinas Marin Lab-

     Nine hundred ninety-five specimens representing 26 species were collected
at monthly intervals for a full calendar year, July, 196? to June, 1968.  The
data clearly indicate that an enormous number of juvenile fish utilize the
lagoon.  The greatest periods of use are:  (Occurrence of at least 10 indi-
viduals for 2 or more months)
          Topsmelt, Atherinopsis affinist  (Jan.?)  Feb. - Dec.
          Jacksmelt, Atherinopsis califerniensist  Sept. - Dee.
          Speckled sanddab, Cithariehthys stigmaeust  Apr. - Dec.
          Herring, Clupea pallasit  March - May
          Shiner perch, Cymategaster aggregatat  May - Oct.
          Surf smelt, Hypemesus pretiosus t  Feb. - April ?
          Pacific Staghorn sculpin, Leptoeottus armatust  Feb.-July (probably
                      year round, especially juveniles)
          Dwarf perch, Mierometrus minimus»  June-December
          English sole, Parephrys vetulus t  April - Aug.
          Cabezon, Seorpaeniehthys marmoratusi  May (also Apr. - Oct.)



     The studies of College of Marin students, T.  Stetson and G.  Griffin,
hare both extended and confirmed our studies.  Both of these reports ex-
tended our knowledge of the areas of the lagoon that are utilised by

     Mr. Ken Adams, a candidate for the masters degree at San Francisco
State College, is conducting a year-long study of the flats between Stinson
sand spit and Highway 1 and between Seadrift Bridge and Pickleweed Island.
His data will extend our knowledge of the use of tidal flats by juvenile
fish.  Mr. Adams, in a preliminary progress report, states j

     "Differentiating between larval, juveniles, and adult forms  is
   quite subjective at present but I would hope to establish a rough
   rule of thumb in designating those organisms larval which are, in
   the natural state, nearly transparent and obviously not having the
   same degree of morphological development as adults.

     "Juvenile forms are designatedas those organisms which are one-
   half or less than the sizes given for the adult of the species

       SPECIES                  ADULT SIZE             REFERENCE*

   Hypomesus pretiosus          to 10"                    1
   Clupea pallasi               to 13"                    1
   EngraulAs mordax             to 7"                     1
   Atherinopsfraffinis           to 12"                    2
   Leptoeottus armatus          to 12"                    2
   Seorpaenichthys marmoratus   to 2*6"                   1
   Clevelandia ios              to 2"                     1
   Pholis ornata                to 12"                    1
   Syngnathus griseolineatus    to 13"                    1
   Cymat»gaster aggregata       to 6"                     2
   Mieremetrus minimus          to 6£"                    2
   Cithaiehthys sordidus sp?    to 13 3/4"                1
   Platichthys stellatus        to 3f                     1
   Parophrys vetulus            to 22f"                   1
   Roccus saxitilis             to V                     2
   Sebastodes aurieulatus       to 2l£n                   2
   Myliobatis calif ornieus      to 4' wide                2
   Triakis semifaseiata         to ?'                     2
   Aeanthogobius flavimanus     (presumably to 8")

   * 1. Clemens & Wilby 1961
        Fishes of the Pacific Coast of Canada
        Bulletin 68, Fisheries Research Board of Canada
     2. Miner, Gotshall & Nitsos 1965
        A Field Guide to Some Common Ocean Sport Fishes of California
        California Department of Fish 4 Game
     Later results have indicated that the channel behind (north of) Kent
Island, and the shallow flats behind (north of) Stinson Beach would have
been better locations in terms of numbers of species of fish and the abun-
dance of their occurrence.  Other observations by us have shown a very



general distribution of small fish throughout the lagoon - probably by
tidal action as well as their own mobility.  Many juveniles are left be-
hind on the nrad flats and sand flats as the tides recede.  It is on these
fish that most herons and egrets feed.

Fish - Pine Gulch Creek

     Pine Gulch Creek, draining the west and north areas of the lagoon
watershed, is the only permanent stream entering the lagoon.  Mr. P. Tupas
and Mr. J. Smith of the College of Marin have made an initial study of the
fish inhabiting this creek from March to May, 1968.

     Mr. Edward Finea&n, a candidate for the masters degree at San Francisco
State College has completed 10 months of a year's study on the fish of the

     These two studies support each other in their findings.  Not consider-
ing the fresh water fish (Cettus asper, Gasterosteus aeuleatus. and Hesper-
oleueus yenustus, all of which utilize this stream) we find thati

      Atherinopsis affinis, topsmelt,is a rare inhabitant
      Clevelandia ios, arrow goby     "    "      "
      Hypomesus pretiosus, surf smelt, is an uncommon inhabitant
      Leptoeottus armatus, staghorn sculpin, is very common from January
                                             to May
      Roccus saxatilis, striped bass, is an occasional inhabitant in deep
                                      pools, May- August
      Salmo gairdneri, rainbow trout, is uncommon January-April, but
                                      common May-December

     In the case of the trout we think that there is an annual crop, hatched
from eggs, that appear in spring but leave for the ocean during the winter
rains.  The adult rainbow (or steelhead) apparently enter the stream for
spawning during the winter months.

Fish - juveniles, stomach contents, McKinnan Gulch station

     Stomach contents of juvenile fish, commonly collected for over a period
of 2 or more months were analyzed.  Since these specimens are juvenile and
their stomachs were so small, no attempt was made to measure the volume of
the contents or of the species represented.  Numbers refer to occurrences in
the stomach.  A selection of our data relative to the most important (abun-
dant) juveniles is presented.


I  o





                                      >f\     u>
                                 CM    CM
                           CO    CM

                                            oo     r\

Fish - nursery grounds

     On the basis of the fish studies we may say:

     Pine  Gulch Creek is an important element for  3 very important gave
and  rough  fish during the months of January to Kay.  In the stumer months
it serves  to produce hundreds of fresh water fish  - roaches and stickle-
backs  - which  are involved in food cycles yet to be worked out for this
area.   We  have noted numbers of black crowned night herons and belted
kingfishers feeding  in this area as well as numerous garter snakes - the
latter eaten by the  great blue heron.

     The sand  flats  and mud flats are important as nursery grounds for
the  juveniles  of 10  species of fish which are common to abundant during
every  month of the year except January.  These same flats support large
crops  of algae( and  worms, amphipods, crustaceans  and clams.  Previous
pages  have shewn the detailed information demonstrating the critical im-
portance of these areas of high production.

     The flats of low invertebrate food production - such as most of the
offshore shallows of the north end of the lagoon - serve as entrapment
areas  for  larval fish, which in turn are consumed  by the herons, egrets,
kingfishers, gulls and other birds.

     No part of the  lagoon is without important food and wildlife values.
Russe, R. A. & E. S. Herald  1968  The 196? Shark Kill in San Francisco
Bay, California Fish & Game  Vol. 5*. No. 3, p. 215-216.



Birds - Shorebirds and other marine birds

     The following data on shorebirds and gamebirds which utilize the lagoon
from winter through spiring has been contributed through the very devoted
efforts of a  group of Audubon Society and Audubon Canyon Ranch members under
the  direction of Dr. Richard Doutt, Professor of Biological Control* Univers-
ity  of California, Berkeley.  Assisting bin were:  Craig Hansen, Tom Harris,
Nello Kearney, Helen Pratt, John Ralph, Alice Williams and C. W. Zumwalt.

Census of avifauna - Bolinas Lagoon - November 28, 196?

Weather clear, sunny, few scattered clouds, very gentle breeze from northwest.
Temperature about 60 F.  Census started at 9tOO a.m. with tide high (5.8)
ebbing to -0.1 about 3tOO p.m.

Count made by Pratt, Zuwalt, Harris, Kearney, Ralph, Hansen and Doutt.

     This group began the census at the marsh near Dipsea Inn, Stinson Beach,
and  together  counted the birds systematically in seven arbitrarily delimited
areas along highway #1.  These areas were contiguous sequentially on their
north and south borders, they were bounded on the east by the highway and
then extended seaward to the effective range of the telescopes.  The group
had  binoculars and 5 telescopes.  One count was made southward from the Bol-
inas highway.  Then counts were made from four areas on Kent Island.  The
last count was made just prior to 3>00 p.m. from Kent Island with the tide
at about its  lowest point.

     Only the birds associated with the ecology of the lagoon were counted
(so  such things as bushtits and Bewick's wrens along the road and soaring
turkey vultures were not included).  By this procedure a total of 44 species
were recorded and 8,190 individuals were counted.

     This is  an indication of the populations, not an absolute count.  It
probably is about 80$ of the total number of individuals present.  The species
count is probably very close although we could have missed two or three.

     Comments t  The gull count is more accurate than that made on sandpipers
because of the conspicuous nature of the gulls.  The sandpiper population
may well have been double the recorded figure.  We saw no color-marked
(marked by Point Reyes Bird Observatory) shore birds.  No godwits nor turn-
stones were seen until we were on Kent Island.  All the shorebirds were more
concentrated  on the east side of the island and adjacent area than elsewhere
in the lagoon.  Savannah sparrows were seen only on Kent Island.  The black
crowned night herons were roosting in the cypress and monterey pine trees
near the Bolinas dock.  The absence of common egrets, Heerman's gulls, Brant,
avocets and phalaropes is worth mentioning.

Census of birds - Bolinas Lagoon - December 19, 196?

Counts made by Pratt, Williams, Zuwalt, Harris and Doutt

Weather clear, sunnyt light breeze from northwest} temperature in high fifties.

Count begun at 9tlO am. with tide flooding, nearly at its peak.  Tide was high
      during most of count forcing shorebirds into Salieernia.  This made them
      difficult to see and probably reduced the counts.


     Th« great blue herons were mostly seen on high ground on Kent Island.
Three individuals were in the oak trees near the house at Audubon Canyon
Ranch.  None were in the immediate vicinity of the heronry.  The snipe
were in the pasture in front of the house at Audubon Canyon Ranch.  The
tire american egrets were seen at some distance on the marshland north of
Kent Island while looking from the island northward toward the Bolinas-
Olema Road.  The short eared owl was clearly seen and regurgitated a pellet
containing mouse remains while under observation on Kent Island.  A flight
of what appeared to be 12 longbilled curlew in "V" formation was seen at a
distance but these birds are not included for lack of confirmation.

     The December 19 census tallied **8 species totaling 7,133 individuals.
The total species counts for the two censuses are now 53 different species
associated with the lagoon environment.

Census of birds - Bolinas Lagoon - January 23, 1968
  (This count does not include a census from Kent Island)

Census made by Williams,, Harris and Doubt.

Weather clear, sunny, wind from east increasing during period of census.
Temperature mid-fifties.  Tide low - ebbing at start of count 0900, was
still ebbing with considerable mud exposed at close of count 1330 hours.

     We did not have access to Kent Island so counts are those made in
regular areas along highway #1, Bolinas-Olema road, and from read near
Marine Station, Bolinas.  This lowers total number of individuals and
explains absence of some species such as savannah sparrows.  Six species
not recorded on the two earlier counts are included.  Thus in our 3 cen-
suses the accumulated total is 59 different species for the lagoon area.
Certain species such as song sparrows and black phoebe are marginal for
the habitat.  They are seen in the Typha south of the causeway to Seadrift.
A total of *t-3 species and 7,099 individuals were counted.

     The number of Avocets counted this time is remarkable.  They were
widely distributed from south of the Seadrift causeway to the Bolinas-Olema
road.  The widgeon and cinnamon teal were near the willow patches along
the Bolinas-Olema road.  The high count of long-billed curlew suggests
that the "V" formation of 12 seen on December 19 was an accurate identifi-
cation.  The heronry at Audubon Canyon Ranch was visited but no herons
were in the area.  Nesting activity for the herons is expected to begin
within the next 30 days.

Census - February 12, 1968.

Counts by Tom Harris, Sarah Harris, C. M. Zumwalt, Helen Pratt, Alice
          Williams and R. Doutt.

Tide very high at beginning of count, 0900, ebbing throughout count period.
Weather sunny, warm, no wind.  Could not operate boat to Kent Island, so that


area not included In this count.  This count is therefore comparable to
January 23 census in areas covered.

     There is a noticeable drop in February in total bird counts as well
as in species.  The shoveler was a single female, but it adds another
species to the accumulated total.  The changes taking place are of con-
siderable interest.  On February 8, 35 great blue herons arrived at the
Audubon Canyon Ranch heronry.  By February 10 some nesting activity was
underway and aore birds had arrived to increase the total to 55*  On Feb-
ruary 12 two Common Egrets had arrived at the heronry and 3 additional
birds were in the lagoon.

     The drop in total individuals in the lagoon census is attributed to
migratory activity.  The avocets dropped in numbers, none of the remaining
birds are in breeding plumage although this is beginning to show in avocets
around San Francisco bay proper.

          Census fort      XI/28/6?   HI/19/67   1/23/68*   11/12/68*

     Total individuals       8190       7133        7099       2777
     Total species             W         kS          M         JS
     Accumulated species       44         53          59         63

     Loon, sp.                  -          -           -          2
       "   common                          1           -
       "   red throated                    2
     Grebe, horned              7         13          16         16
            eared               752^
       "    western             &          2                     10
            pied billed         1
     Pelican, brown             98           1          -
     Cormorant, Dbl Cr.        13         1^          11         25
     Heron, Great blue         15         23          10         55
     Egret, Common                         2                      5
            Snowy              10          8           6         15
     Heron, Bl Cr Vt.           9         23          12         21
     Duck, pintail             90          4          53          *
     Teal, Cinnamon             -                      2          -
     American Widgeon                                 12
     Duck, Redhead                         1           -
     Shoveler                   -                                 1
     Canvasback                20         13          32          *
     Scaup (spp)               50        ^08         153        228
     Goldeneye, common         55         67          15         26
       "        Barrows                    1           -
     Bufflehead               200        10^          50         76
     Scoter, Wht wing         391          2          13          *

     * Bird counts do not include those of Kent Island} totals should be
       raised some 1000-1500 to make the last 2 months comparable to the
     first 2 months of the survey. (JFG)



                            H/28/67   XII/19/67   1/23/68    11/12/68

     Scoter, surf             134          44         54         29
       "     common             -                      9
     Duck, ruddy             1755        1120        789       1161
     Merganser, hooded          1           1          -          -
                redbreasted     8           64-2
     Osprey                     1           -
     Coot                     418         771        444        486
     Plorer, snowy             13           -
     Killdeer                   5          23         16         20
     Plover, Blk Bellied       19          19         57          2
     Turnstone, blk             7           12-
                ruddy                                  2
     Snipe, common              -           2          -
     Curlew, long billed       16          15         22          2
     Sandpiper, spotted         1           1-1
     Willett                  219         166        331         53
     Tellowlegs, greater        5           912
     Sandpiper spp.*         2665        2898       3378        110
     Godwit, marbled           32          27         90
     Sanderling               260         211        174         20
     Avocet                     -                    105          9
     Guns spp.              1714        1061       1217        191
     includes Western          14           222
              herring          53          12          8         42
              California                    2          1
              ring billed       8           2         48         60
              new             596        1042        744         64
              Bonapartes        4           11-
     Owl, short eared           -           1-
     Kingfisher, belted         4753
     Phoebe, black              -                      1          4
     Blackbirds, brewers        -          54          -
       "         redwinged      3           -          8         10
     Sparrow, savannah         20           6          2
              song              7627
     Tellowthroat               2

                (63 total species identified)

     * Dunlin, Dowitcher and Western sandpiper
     Following this work, the group, now expanded, has initiated a year-long
study of the bird life of the lagoon!   It is indeed unusual and especially
rewarding to find such endeavor and such competence among a group of "volun-

     The above listing of birds is not a check list of the birds likely to
be seen at the lagoon.  For such a check list, see the A.O.U.  list published
by the Harin Audubon Society.

     According to Reinecker (1965), bandings have indicated that California
winters over 75# of all birds in the Pacific flyway.  Studies by the De-
partment of Pish and Game of California have shown that 60-90$ of the shore-
birds of the Pacific Coast overwinter in the San Francisco Bay area.

     It is obvious therefore that if this very large segment of our bird
life is to persist, that we must be concerned with the preservation of
significant areas for their winter habitat.  It so happens that these self-
same areas are the same ones that are important for our estuarine (and to
some considerable extent) coastal invertebrate and vertebrate marine animals
from worms through shrimp, crabs and clams to all of the fishes, and even
the seals, sea lions and whales.

     In this case at least, habitat preservation is not for a single use.
We have demonstrated a host of animals - both with and without vertebral
backbones that are becoming more and more dependent upon our interest and
protection for their survival.  The time and Interest shown by the many
cooperators listed in this and in the previous sections attest to the grow-
ing awareness of the importance of and the necessity of both habitat pre-
servation and (where lacking) of habitat reconstruction.

Birds - stomach contents of marine birds

     Very few studies have been published on shorebird or wildfowl stomach
contents.  Federal and state regulations regarding shooting permits as well
as the grinding of the contents in the gizcard and the rapid disintegration
of the stomach contents have contributed to our lack of information and the
difficulty of improving on it.

     Reeder (1951) *"3 Recher (1964) have some data on shorebird stomachs.
Kingsley (1966) has made observations on feeding habits.  Zumwalt (personal
eommunication) b*s reported on observations through telescopes mounted
nearby nests on the appearance of food matter as it is regurgitated into
the stomachs of the nestlings of great blue herons and egrets.

     On the basis of these references and observations we may conclude that*

     Herons and egrets feed primarily on juvenile fishes trapped or delayed
on flats as the tide recedes.  Both birds, especially the herons forage in
adjacent fields and will eat apparently any animal - snakes, rodents, large
insects, crayfish, etc.  Other invertebrate* are minor food items.

     Plovers, sandpipers and sanderlings that typically feed over the
plekleweed (SalAeornia) marshes feed primarily on insects (larvae and
pupae) - especially (Ephydra) flies and occasionally beetles of the fam-
ilies Tenebrionidae, Craabidae and Buprestidae.

     Phalaropes, stilts, and avoeets may also feed primarily on insects when
abundant in the marshes.

     Willets feed primarily on worms and clams.   Recher (1964) reports
observing one willet that consumed over 20 clams (3/4 to If* in sice) in
a 10-minute period.


     Plows, sanderlings and sandpipers (Reader 1951) in southern Calif-
ornia feed 75-80$ en the sand crab, Emerita analoga.

     The tiny clam, Cammn gemma, makes up a significant percentage of the
food contents of thet  black bellied plover (12.7$, avoeet (52$), knot
(55.316), andwillet (46.1$) f Reeher (1964).

     Worms make up a significant percentage of the feed contents of thet
ringed plorer (94.5$), black bellied plorer (16.4$), aToeet (16.0$), dunltn
(70.0$) and marbled godwit (76.0*), Reeher (196*).

     Amphipod and ostraeeds (small crustaceans) make up a significant per-
centage ef the food contents of thet  aveeet (28.0$), dowiteher (24.0$),
least sandpiper (31.6$), and dunlin (14.7$), Reeher (1964).

     Snails and clams make up a significant percentage of the feed contents
of thei  arocet (24.0$), dowiteher (10.5$), least sandpiper (10.5$), western
sandpiper (11.4$), marbled godwit (9.1$), and irillet (13.9$), Reeher (1964).

     Professor Howard Cogswell has stated (personal communication) that
sherebirds average per acre ist

        Oakland-Alamedat  20 birds/acre
        Hayward and South San Francisco Bayi  16 birds/acre

     Proctor (1968) has shewn that shorebirds may carry and deposit undigested
seeds for distances of several thousand miles.  Of course many of these seeds
would fail to produce persisting vegetation in alien areas.  However, the
shorebirds have the ability to seed areas with selected and preferred food

Harbor seal

     Harbor seals, Pheca vitulina, can be seen in the channels from the mouth
of the lagoon and southeast along Stinson Beach sand spit, around Pickleweed
Island and then north to the big duck blind offshore of the Audubon Canyon

     There is a "pad", their spot en the sandy beach, near the southeast
corner ef Kent Island.  Mr. D. Harris of College of Harin (1968) has observed
that the channel immediately in front of the pad deepens very quickly to
about 1**.  This channel is 100 or mere feet wide at this point.  The pad
is on an open sandy beach with the nearest (marsh) vegetation about 125/ away.
Even though the pad is on Kent Island which frequently has many human and dog
visitors, the seals can detect any approaching object from a considerable and
safe distance.  Harris believes that the steep channel bank at this point is
the major reason for the selection by the seals of this location.  They are
not seen en land elsewhere.  They are seen frequently in the mouth of the

     We have noted from 16-34 seals en the pad during the summer months ef
1967 and 1968.  Mr. Craig Hanson of the Bolinas Marine Laboratory estimates


their timber to be between 37-^0.  He also notes that during the winter
the pad is used by a smaller number - perhaps 6 to 12.

     We noted tiro young paps early this stumer.  Mr. Siegel made an observ-
ation that I was fortunate to see with him on a later date.  The young paps
are very "inquisitive and fearless."  When a pup is approached by a boat,
it swims toward the boat.  The adult (mother ?) comes up beneath the pup
who then clasps its (mother's) neck with its front flippers and the pair
swim away from the boat.  The pup lying on the back of the adult.  The adult
turns its head back around toward the pup for several seconds.  The entire
event is accomplished quickly.  This cameo scene stimulates one to make
several anthropomorphic interpretations.  We permit ourselves one.  It does
appear that the adult intercepts the pup from danger, carries it away and
if there is no lecture to the young, at least there is a long (scolding ?)

     Ingles (1965) states that mating occurs in September, that this seal
is polygamous (no harems) and that the young are born in early spring.  The
food consists of fish, molluscs, and crustaceans.

     Harbor seals snore - loudly!
Ingles, L. 6.  1965  Mammals of the Pacific States,  Stanford University

Proctor, V. W.  1968  Long-Distance Dispersal of Seeds by Retention in
Digestive Tract of Birds,  Science, Vol. 160, p. 321-322.

Recher, H. F.  19&  Some Aspects of the Population Biology of Migrant
Shorebirds, Doctoral dissertations  Stanford University 6*1—7676.

Reader, W. G.  1951  Stomach Analysis of a Group of Shorebirds,  The Condor,
Vol. 53. P.
Rieneeker, W. C.  1965  A Summary of Band Returns from Lesser Snow Geese
(Chen hyperborea) of the Pacific Flyway,  California Fish 4 Game, Vol. 51.
No. 3, p. 132-139.


Marine plants
     In plotting the vegetation of the mud flats and sand flats ire are
indebted to a mother of students of the College of Marin, Bolinas Marine
Laboratory, especially K. C. Mannix.  Their studies have assisted us in
addition to our own field investigations.

     Microscopic plants called mod flat diatoms are frequent inhabitors of
mud flats and sand flats.  These plants are either single-celled plants or
grow in short chains (filaments).  Some of the diatoms are large enough to
see with the naked eye.

     Diatoms lire within the upper centimeter of the bottom substrate.
When the tide is in, the diatoms migrate downward.  When the tide is out,
they migrate to the surface.  When abundant, diatoms may give the surface
a slick, rather sliny, green or olive brown colored appearance.  In waters
less than 2 fathoms deep (12*), these diatoms and the ether mud flat algae
(Ulva, Enteromorpha) are more important  ..than the suspended plankton in
producing carbohydrate.  Since nearly all of this lagoon is less than 1
fathom (6*) at high tide, we decided to place our emphasis concerning pro-
ductivity studies on the mud flat diatoms and other algae rather than on
the plankton.

     Several preliminary plankton studies have been undertaken by _; students
at the Bolinas Marine Laboratory from College of Marin.  We have not covered
this phase of the lagoon ecology for the reasons given above.

     Maidens Hair, a red alga (Gracilaria 5joestedtii) is occasionally found
in the deeper channels of the lagoon - particularly toward the northern end.
There are a few large beds of this alga in the flats southwest of Audubon
Canyon Ranch.

     The green grass algae, 3 species of Enteromorpha. (E. elathrata, E.
eempressa, E. intestinalis) during late spring and summer are abundant over
the shallow muddy flats.  E. intestinalis is the most widely distributed.
It covers large sections of the shallows at the north end of the lagoon as
well as west of the Seadrift bridge behind Stinson Beach.  E. eompressa is
found attached to rocks near fresh water seepage, i.e., at mouths of creeks
at the north end of the lagoon.

     Sea lettuce, three species of Ulva, (U. expansa and U. Linsa and U.
flaetuca) are the most widespread of the algae.  U. expansa. looking much
like large sheets of limp lettuce, covers acres of the lower mud and sand

     The species of Enteromorpha, Ulva and the mud flat diatoms are the
most important plants in the lagoon for four reasons.  One, they engage in
photosynthesis - the production of sugars by the green pigment chlorophyll
in sunlight, and thus are at the base of all life food cycles.  Two, the
green algae secrete up to 10£ of their daily carbohydrate production into
the water.  Thus, the water is enriched by these plants.  Three, the plants



are consumed Toy a large number of animals - WOMB, crustaceans, fish, birds,
etc.)*  On death, the plants become part of the plant detritus that enriches
the floor of the lagoon.  Most worms, ghost shrimp, clams and many others
live primarily on this detritus.  Four, the surfaces of the green algae sup-
port a huge population of diatoms and both microscopic and macroscopic
animals.  That is, a sheet of Ulva represents not only the green alga itself
but an enormous community of life.  This community is one that is associated
with surfaces.  It is new possible to buy Japanese plastic algal sheets to
suspend in estuarine or lagoon waters.  The surface itself provides the
necessary substrate - above the bottom silt and sand.  One can demonstrate
this community by seizing a handful of algae and sloshing it up and down
in a bucket of water to dislodge the animal life from the surfaces.  Each
large crustacean or worm then seen in the bucket undoubtedly represents hosts
of others too small to be seen.

     For the above reasons, then, the flats with their large algal popula-
tions are important elements in the ecology of the lagoon.

     Eelgrass, Zostera marina, is present in so far as we can determine in
only one location - in the Bolinas Channel, close by the large cement re-
taining wall.  Despite earlier attempts by the Department of Fish and Game
to establish eelgrass in other areas of the lagoon, we have not found any
other locations of eelgrass within the lagoon.

     As described previously, the algal populations reach high levels of
population growths in lagoons not matched elsewhere per unit area.  These
plant populations in turn support the growth of innumerable animals.  That
some of the animals are predaceous and some are parasitic is beside the
point.  The net result of all of this biological activity is that Bolinas
Lagoon supports an enormous quantity of plants and animals.

     The following 2 charts are reproduced from the B. M. L. report of K.
C. Mannixt  "An Algae Survey of Bolinas Lagoon," 196? „  This study was
performed under the direction of Mr. A. Molina of College of Marin.

                             ALGAE DISTRIBUTION

                  East   South     Main   Wharf          Small  West
                  End   Channel  Channel   "E"   Creek  Lagoon  End
U. expansa        ***               *      ***            **    ***
TJ. Lima                                     *
E. intestinalis   ***                        *             *
E. elathrata      ***                                     **
E. eompressa                                      ***
Graeilaria                         **       **             *     **
Gigartina                                    *
Zestera                    *
Polysophonia                                 *



Productivity of Mod flat algae.
     Mr. Stephen Siegel received his masters degree from San Francisco
State College for devising methods for measuring the rates of carbohy-
drate of wad flat diatoms and Ulva.  Mr. Siegel used C1^ labelled sodium
bicarbonate to measure the rate of carbon incorporation « carbon synthe-
sis a rate of photosynthesis.  Although the = signs hide an involved
series of field and laboratory methods, he was able to demonstrate their
approximate rates of photosynthesis.  Both the diatoms and Ulva expansa
are extremely active producers of carbohydrates - the energy that fuels
the biology of the lagoon.  The following pages in this section were sub-
mitted by Mr. Siegel.

                          CARBON ASSIMILATION DATA*

Estimation of carbon incorporation rates.

     The rate at which carbon, in the form of CO? or, more probably, HCO-a,
is assimilated by an actively photosynthesizing algal thallus can be deter-
mined by supplying to the algae a known amount of earbon-1^ in the form of
NaHC*0-a.  The plant incorporates this labelled carbon, as well as the ear-
bon-12 normally in the seawater.  After allowing the algae to incorporate
this radiocarbon for a carefully measured period of time, the algae is
killed and dried.  Then, by using a Geiger counter, the amount of radio-
activity that the algae acquired can be measured.  By measuring the temper-
ature, salinity and pH of the seawater, it is possible to calculate, from
tables given by Harvey (I960), the amount of C*2 present in the seawater.
As the amount of (>  added is known with some accuracy, we may set up the
ratio  •  ]ft .  After determining how much C1^ has been incorporated, and

after making the corrections for the difference in rate at which C12 and
C j  are incorporated, it is only necessary to multiply the value for the
C1* ineorporatioTLby the factor C-^tC  .  This will then give the value
for the total  (C12* C1 ) carbon incorporation.

     Since the surface area of the samples are known, the carbon incorpor-
ation values can be expressed on & square inch, square meter, acre, or any
other areal basis.

     All the tests upon which this data is based were conducted for 3 hours,
in the middle of the day.  In order to transpose this data so that it gives
the amount of carbon incorporated per day, and not just per 3 hours, it is
necessary to make two assumptions, both of which are known to be grossly
inaccurate.  First, we must assume that the rate of photosynthesis is the
same during the entire day as it is during the 3 hours of the test.  Secondly,
we assume that the photoperiod lasts 12 hours each day.  Now, to change the
3-hour incorporation data to 12-hour incorporation data, the results of these
tests are multiplied by 4.  This will give a very crude estimation of carbon
*This section presents a portion of the methods and data offered in the
 masters thesis of Mr. Stephen Siegel at San Francisco State College, 1968.

incorporation per day, per sample.  (It should be emphasised that, while
this value is known to be very inaccurate* the values calculated for the
3-hour test are quite accurate, as no unwarranted extrapolations are in-
troduced until we try to convert the data into a daily figure.)

     The area of each of the sample pieces of algae is 2.3 on2.  If the
data is expressed in m2, acres or hectares, we are assuming a uniform cover-
ing of algae over this larger area, and also that the algae is all in the
same physiological condition and is photosynthesizing at the sane rate.
These are highly erroneous assumptions.

Conversions performed on the above data.

     The incorporation data is originally expressed in terms of carbon
incorporation per 2.3 car.  This is extrapolated to mg C/ a2.  According
to Odurn (1959), grams per meter, when multiplied by 8.9, will give pounds
per acre.  This value is then multiplied by 4 to give Ibs/acre/day.  (Since
the values of carbon incorporated are so small, the expression is actually
Ibs x 10~^/acre/day.)  Steeman-Nielsen and Hansen (1959) found that under
ideal conditions, when the photosynthesisirespiration ratio is equivalent
to 10, 90$ of all assimilated carbon is in excess to the plant's immediate
needs and is stored, mainly as carbohydrate.  On a 2*4—hour basis, allowing
for the use of stored materials during the night (we must assume that the
rate of respiration is the same in the light as in the dark), 4-5$ of all
assimilated carbon will be in excess to the plants needs and will represent
net productivity.  Therefore, the next step is to multiply the value Ibs x
l&"^/acre/day by 0.^5» to determine net stored carbon.

     Harvey (I960) and Hedgepeth (195?) state that the efficiency of util-
ization of vegetable matter by plankton and filter-feeders is 70$.  That
is, for every 100 gm. algae eaten by sooplankton or extracted from the water
by filter-feeders, 70$ is assimilated into the animal's tissues and 30$ is
lost through the gut.  Therefore, ?0$ of the storage products of the algae
(net production) can be considered to be available for the forming of animal
tissue, if we assume 100$ harvest of the algae and the secreted algal pro-
ducts.  This is a measure of the fate of the carbon incorporated, not nec-
essarily the products of photosynthesis.  Smith (194-3) has estimated that
at 20°C, 98$ of the assimilated carbon ends up as carbohydrates.  This figure
is considered by Rabinowiteh (in his treatise on photosynthesis, 1957) to be
accurate under ideal conditions.

     Elemental carbon is considered to form about 20$ (Weisz, 1965)* by
weight, of animal tissue.  Therefore, if we know the amount of carbon that
ultimately gets eaten by an animal, we can multiply this value by 5 to get
a rough approximation of the total weight of animal soft tissue represented
by this amount of carbon.

     To give an example of these calculations let us assume that 100 gas of
carbon have been assimilated by an algae, and that the entire plant is con-
sumed by animals.

         100 gm   assimilated (measured by tracing, and the CtC   factor)
          45 gn   stored (excess beyond plant's respiratory needs)
          31.5 gm assimilated by animals (1*5 x 0.70)
         157*5 PI animal soft tissue produced (31.5 * 5)

      Therefore, under ideal conditions, if all our assumptions are correct,
 100 gas. carbon assimilated from the water can produce 158 gas. animal tis-
 sue.  It is probable that this figure is, in reality, inaccurate by at least
 500 - 1,000$, or more.

    Addendum.  Harvey (I960), gives the following figurest

    100 gn vegetable matter assimilated yieldst

         70 gm short-lived herbaceous zooplankton
         11 gm (6-7/6 of 70 gm) pelagic fish feeding on zooplankten
          1 gm (6-105J of 11 gm) demersal fish feeding on well-grown bivalves

     Harvey, H. W. (I960) The Chemistry and Fertility of sea water
     Hedgepeth, Joel (1957). p. 38ff in Treatise on marine ecology and
     Odum, E. (1959) Fundamentals of Ecology, 2nd ed. (p. 70)
     Smith, J. H. C. (19^3) Plant Physiology 18«207.
     Steeoan Nielsen, E. and V. Kr. Hansen (1959)•  Measurements of the
         C^ technique of the respiration rates in natural populations
         of Phytoplankton.  Deep-Sea Research 5»222-233.

Sampling methodt

     The sampling method was designed to provide data on the rates of photo-
synthesis of living Ulva and diatoms.  Consequently, in order to introduce
both positive sampling of selected substrate and to gain some concept of
geographic (spatial) variation wet

   employed a #10 cork borer to make disc cuts in sheets of Ulva and
     to cut "plugs", 1-3 Km thick of the surface diatoms on mud and
     sand.  The discs and plugs had an area of 2.7 sq. cm,

   5 sheets of Ulva were selected from a 10 meter transect.  One plug
     was taken from each blade - thallus - of algae and tested separately.

   5 plugs of mud flat diatoms were taken within a 10 m transect.  Each
     plug was tested separately.  We avoided areas of varves (algal mats)
     and translucent fungul appearing areas.

The method was biased in that it selected those bottom areas containing only
Ulva or mud flat diatoms.  It was random in that we utilized 5 samples of each
category over a 10 m area.

     2 *
     •3 «7>
             \O w^O rH O
                         O O w>ivr»o






                C^OO   rH
 « -H K

 W O


              o o HOO «r ovoxoo

              CO     *
              >O rH P>
                                                                       O\O O J- CM
                                                                  PA CO CM J*
                                                                                  f^OO H\O O
                                                                                  ON 00
                                                                                  CAJ H tM H H
                                                                                  S s  t «  t    H

Summary and Key index spades

    The following chart presents information regarding ear determinations
of overall wildlife importance of the bottom life.

    Reference to the previous pages en fish stomach contents and bird
stomach contents have shown that crustaceans, verms* molluscs and fish
are the important foods for fish and birds, and in that order of import-
ance.  Such a generalization is lost when one considers a particular species
of fish or bird.

    Consequently, ire have shown both specific details and general tendencies.

    We conclude that all forms eventually (in life or death) enrich some
biological cycle.  If one wishes to know which forms are more obviously
important we refer to the previous pages for information on juvenile fishes
and the bottom invertebrates.

    Thus, when we consider the relation of these life forms to the nature
of the bottom and the quality of the water above it, we find that all
segments of the lagoon and marsh are valuable.

    Major plant production (omitting plankton from this consideration)
occursin shallow flats, both muddy sand and sandy mud, but much less so
on sandy flats.

    Water turbidity increases rapidly as one moves inland.

    Organic richness increases rapidly in the same way.  The extreme ends
of the lagoon - the SE and N ends are very rich with organic matter.
Nearly all of this matter is detritus from marine plants (diatoms and
algae) except south of the Seadrift bridge where large pieces of semi-
decayed fresh water marsh plants (Typha, Seirpus) make up the bulk of the
organic matter.

    There are major changes in the animal populations between those in-
habiting the sandy mud versus the muddy sand bottoms.  The quantity and
variety of life is much higher in muddy sand bottoms.

    Similarly, the use of the muddy sand flats around Kent Island and
Pickleweed Island and north of Stinson sand spit by juvenile fish point
out a higher wildlife importance of these types of areas.

    The greatly simplified chart shows correlations of a number of factors,*
On the basis of these determinations, the final report will present recom-
mendations for the improvement and maintenance of the lagoon and the pre-
cautions that should be taken against any chemical or physical damages due
to man's activities within the lagoon.  As we have stated previously, there
is adequate space within the lagoon for wildlife, recreation and some limited
haber development.  We are inclined toward the view that with proper planning



      o   o  o
          t  *
          1  .


          I  31
      M   i
         O   iH
         H   H
                                   H  >  
                                                         o  o
                                                      *   s  r
       P.  «  J3


                                                                   * *

and soiling* * harbor development could produce an enhancement of the
wildlife production and potential within the lagoon.  This optimistic
thought presuppose* that any development will employ and conform to the
best planning and coning concepts, both of which rely upon the ecological
evidence in reaching their conclusions.

algal production

bottom conditions

invertebrate life

juvenile fish


wading birds

rating as to importance to
wildlife in terms of food   low          very high       high

necessity for habitat
improvement                none            some          great

necessity for improvement
of water circulation       none            some          great
muddy, sand
very high
very high
very high
very high
SB & m
very high
very high
sandy mud

^^?^J^l^^^,'^^^^jr^^   •'•yst**':,.' **•, -; ""*•
                                     '^.^  "'.^^; *  *»"
The burrow of the  blue ghost shrimp, Ujogebig  pugeftensis,  is about 10-18" down  in
the muddy sand. The 2-3" cones mark the ends of the "U" shaped burrow. The other
holes are made by the mud crab, Hemigrapsus oregonensis.


                              February 18, 1969

         I would like to testify concerning some of the values of San Vrancisco
    Bay, including its mudflats, marshes and the streams that flow through these
    marshes.  It has been widely reported that the Bay has dwindled in area by
    337o during the last 100 years, but it is not so well known that the marshland
    surrounding the Bay has decreased in area by 75% during the same period.
    Accordingly I would like to focus on the importance of our marshes and the
    streams that flow through them into the Bay.

         The San Francisco Bay environment has a great educational value.  For
    many years we took classes in ornithology and vertebrate natural history to
    the marshes and mudflats at Alameda's Bay Farm Island to observe the myriads
    of shorefairds that used to occur there.  Since the recent "development" of
    that property we have had to discontinue trips to that area and we now visit
    the somewhat less-productive area of Richardson's Bay.  We have approximately
    75 students each year in these classes; most of them become teachers and
    many of these become enthusiastic students of natural history and proponents
    of conservation as a result of these trips.

         We have found that saltmarsh streams, which are miniature estuaries, also
    have a great educational value.  I have studied one of these streams, Corte
    Madera Creek, for several years and have been impressed by the vast quantity of
    plant, invertebrate and vertebrate life that is produced there.  I was also
    surprised to find that 20 or more species of marine fishes utilize this stream
    for several miles above its mouth.  Such streams can truly be called "nursery
    grounds" for marine fishes, since juveniles of such important species as
    striped bass, rainbow trout, starry flounders and topsmelt occur there.  We
    have taken many classes in ichthyology and animal ecology to this dynamic^
    productive estuarine environment.

         I would finally like to plea for the conservation of the San Francisco
    Bay environment in general, and its marshes and streams in particular.
                                        James P. Mackey
                                        Associate Professor of Biology
                                        San Francisco State College
                                                     /'       -
                                                    /.   ////-• A

                       Sierra Club
                San Francisco Bay Chapter

          Bay-Delta Water Quality Subcommittee
                   Preliminary Report
                       June 1968

     The Sierra Club is concerned with maintaining the

natural environment not only in select wilderness areas,

where the works of man have had minimum impact, but also in

areas where an enjoyable natural environment has persisted

or reestablished itself next to man-made improvements.

     An area of acute concern at present is San Francisco

Bay, its upstream bays, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta.  This magnificent estuarine system is a priceless

environmental resource, supporting a host of value-building

activities from recreation to industry.  Perhaps most

important to millions is the appreciation of clean water

in its channels and bays.

     The wholesale diversion of Delta water by projects now

operating, under construction, or being planned, together

with increasing additions of agricultural, municipal and

industrial wastes may reduce water quality in the system to

the point that it becomes nothing more than a stagnating

and foul-smelling open sewage drain.

     The Club should act now to protect the quality of  this

region as a unique environmental asset.


     This section describes the Bay-Delta region, gives

its history in terms of river flows, and lists the extent

of diversions planned for the near future.  Also discussed

are the probable results of this flow attrition and the

various factors contributing to the concomittant attrition

of water quality.  Finally, it describes the functions of

a canal intended to by-pass the Delta in order to assure

water quality at the export pumps.

                       THE AREA

     The environmental quality of the Delta, Suisun Bay

and northern San Francisco Bay is  largely governed by the

inflow of clean water from the streams and rivers of the

Central Valley watershed which is drained by the Sacramento

River from the north and by the San Joaquin River from the

south.  Each river forms the side of a large triangle, the

Delta, and the two rivers meet at the western point of the

triangle near Antioch.  The other corners are roughly the

cities of Sacramento to the north and Stockton to the south,

both of which have facilities to handle ocean-going ships.

Tides entering the Golden Gate affect water levels in both

rivers beyond the Delta, but for most of the time its

channels contain fresh water which is used by local irrigators,

municipalities, and industry.

                          - 2 -

The Delta contains some 50,000 acres of waterways with more

than a thousand miles of shoreline.  The downstream bays,

including, of course, San Francisco Bay, have a surface

area of 435 square miles with 276 miles of shoreline.

Millions use these waterways for recreation, making the Bay

and Delta both major recreational assets to northern California,


Western man, in displacing the usufruct Indian, has changed

many aspects of the region's environment by changing the

pattern of water flows.  The Delta was once a huge bog, inter-

laced with streams, covered with willows and tules, capable

of absorbing the impact of major floods.  Extensive diking

has reclaimed a half million acres for river-irrigated

agriculture, at the same time, however, constricting the flood

plain's capacity.  Hydraulic mining for upstream gold between

1860 and 1914 loaded the channels and bays with over 800

million cubic yards of gravels and sands, still further dimin-

ishing their ballast capacity to resist flood and tidal sea

water inflow.  Construction of the major upstream dams:

Shasta, Friant, Folsom, and Oroville, has helped to control

floods and to resist sea water inflow into the Delta area.

Storage in them, though, is used primarily to provide summer-

time flows for irrigation, at the same time generating
                          - 3 -

electricity as an important by-product.  The sale of water

and power pays back the construction costs of the dams and

their delivery systems, at the same time serving to promote

rapid economic development and population increases within

the state.

Historically, recorded fresh water flows into the Delta have

ranged between a maximum of 45 million acre feet during

water year 1938 and a minimum of 7,6 million acre feet during

water year 1924.  (A water year begins on the first of

October of the previous year and ends on the thirtieth of

September).  Peak flood flows of 445,000 cfs (cubic feet per

second) on the 25th of December, 1964, and of 8.67 million

acre feet during March 1907 have been measured, with the lowest

continuous flow being around 2,100  cfs during August 1931,

and a minimum flow of 1,100 cfs for around the 17th of July

1924.  Extended low flows, as well as minimum flows, allow

tidal action to pump saline water farther and farther upstream

until, as in 1924 and 1931, saline water reached Stockton in

the south and Courtland to the north.  During these times the

rivers were not much fit for irrigation or, for that matter,

for navigation.  Roughly 75 per cent of Delta inflow, that is,

Central Valley outflow, comes from the Sacramento River and

its tributaries, over 20 per cent from the San Joaquin, with

the remainder from streams tributary to the Delta alone.
                          - 4 -

Sale and delivery schedules of water from upstream storage

reservoirs are based on computations of the available supply,

which in turn is usually predicated on data of five or more

consecutive dry years within a series of at least 35 years.

Low water years for Central Basin runoff were the seven

"critical years" from 1927 to 1934.  Shasta, Friant and Oroville

as well as other dams will presumably run dry should a similar

cycle recur.  And as with historically recorded maximum and

minimum flows, there is no assurance whatever that in the future

conditions may not be worse than the seven critical years.


Increased upstream diversions and downstream demands showed

after the construction of Shasta Dam (1944) that soon new

supplies would have to be imported from other watersheds.

Portions of plans to transfer additional water from north coast

rivers have been implemented already with the construction of

Trinity Dam, delivering water through Clear Creek Tunnel into

the Sacramento River above Redding.  Many other reservoirs,

pumping plants and tunnels are designed for tapping north coast

watersheds for export to the Central Valley Basin,  Unless

alternatives are developed, increasing use will have to be made

of these rivers to fill a growing basin deficit.
                          - 5 -

Where Delta inflows have averaged somewhere between 20 and

30 million acre feet a year, present upstream diversions

reduce this to around 17 million acre feet, and projects now

under construction may cut this to as low as a little over

one million acre feet at the end of a series of dry years, or

to around 2.5 million acre feet in a median year.  Diversions

take place all along the streams and rivers leading to the Delta,

but the major diversions are or will take place in the Delta

near Tracy.  Export pumps of the Bureau of Reclamation can

divert 3.33 million acre feet per year, serving the Delta-

Mendota Canal; the state's pumps will export 4.43 million acre

feet a year by way of various aqueducts, project water going

as far south as San Diego.  Both delivery systems have their

own canals and pumping plants, but both depend at present on

the inflow of a single channel, the Sacramento River and on

the Delta waterway-reservoir.


It is easy to see that increasing upstream diversions will

reduce the volume of water reaching the Delta and needed at

the export pumps to fill increasing contract requirements.

Water pumped out at Tracy is presently drawn from the many

channels of the Delta waterways which act as a fresh water

reservoir/ with one corner, however, open to the bays and to
                          - 6 -

ocean water coming through the Golden Gate.  Heavy summertime

pumping when river inflows are low will cause salt water to be

drawn into the Delta at Antioch.  Salt incursions are detri-

mental not only to the municipal, industrial and agricultural

users, but to the adjacent marshlands as well.  Salt water unfit

for irrigation might even reach the pumps during certain dry


Proposals for blocking sea water inflow include the establishing

of criteria for minimum flows past Antioch.  Physical barriers

have been rejected because of potential damage to the fishery

resource in that migrating fish raised at hatcheries below the

major dams must pass to and from the ocean through a gradual

transitions zone of brackish water.  Minimum outflows of above

a certain number of cfs will safeguard Delta users and the

established ecology.

Naturally there is disagreement as to the exact minimum outflow

required to block salt intrusion, especially with the fight for

available water developing.  Corps of Engineers estimates range

from a high of 7,500 cfs to a 1949 minimum of at least 4,600 cfs.

The State's Department of Water Resources has, however, revised

its minimum criteria from its 1924-1928 water supervisor's report

of 4,000 cfs down to 3,300 cfs, to its present 1,500 cfs.  It

seems reasonable that the enlarged Bay-Delta model of the Corps
                          - 7 -

of Engineers in Sausalito, coupled with a computer model, will

furnish an easily agreed-upon minimum, providing agreement is

reached on the maximum salt intrusion to be permitted.  But

beyond this minimum, another will have to be agreed on in order

to safeguard the necessary seasonal purging of the downstream

bays, at least until present pollution and contamination levels

are drastically reduced.  The bay is essentially flushed in one

month, and flushing of the system is practically complete in two

months with a Delta outflow of 25,000 cfs«  This flushing of the

accumulated pollutants has been accomplished almost every winter

which has included any one of the following Delta outflows:

2 million acre feet in any one month, 3 million acre feet within

two consecutive months, or a total of 4 million acre feet in any

four consecutive months.

                         QUALITY ATTRITION

A reduction of water quantity usually means a parallel reduction

in its quality.  Falling rain or snow contains atmospheric dust

and gases in solution. Once on the ground it slowly  begins to

dissolve the rocks and sands past which it flows, gradually

building up its mineral load.  Evaporation along the way, from

lakes and reservoirs especially, further concentrates these

minerals.  Once in soil, water picks up minerals that are more

rapidly being dissolved by the acids and enzymes of the myriad

bacteria that are able to directly attack stone.  Plants grow-

ing in soil (or mineral-containing water) use only what they

need or can use at that time.  The remaining minerals are further

concentrated to the point where they become poisonous.  The

gradual build-up of salts in the root zone has made areas of the

Central Valley less and less productive.  Additional water must

be used to flush these chemicals down or out.  This "used"

irrigation water then flows either into the San Joaquin River or

the ground water supply.  Unless sufficient extra fresh water is

added neither can be used for irrigation.  A further hazard is

the fact that this return flow contains traces of the exotic

chemicals used to kill plant pests/ to promote plant vigor, and

to perform a host of other functions such as defoliating cotton,

causing fruit to drop, etc.

Irrigation waste flows are toxic to life and must be removed

from the area to prevent contamination.  It was agreed to by

most that subsurface drains, tile pipelines 6 to 8 feet deep, are

needed to collect the wastes away from the 7 foot region in which

most plants have their roots.   It is also agreed that a master

drain is needed for the entire San Joaquin Valley to keep the

effluent from further contaminating the ground supply.  Both

Federal and State plans call for separate drains although a joint

system has been proposed.  The common terminal for both is at

                          - 9 -

Agricultural drains carry excess fertilizer, primarily in the

form of nitrate-nitrogen plus sulfate and traces of phosphate.

Nitrate and phosphate, in conjunction with other ingredients

found in Bay waters, will promote rapid algal growth in the

presence of light.  Quantities of nitrate in the drain are given

as around 20 ppm, and are far more than are needed to promote

algal "blooms", a sudden population explosion beyond the sustain-

ing capacity of the system.  The water becomes turbid, cutting

off light, stopping photosynthesis, and causing algae to die.

Their decay in turn demands oxygen from the limited amount dis-

solved in the water.  The resulting shortage of oxygen contributes

to the death not only of more algae, but also to the asphyxiation

of most other forms of aquatic-life.  This includes clams,

snails, and especially fish.  The process is called eutrophica-

tion and it takes a fairly static lake or bay considerable time

to recover.  Meanwhile it is a foul mass, commonly referred to

as "black water".  Even if the nitrate-nitrogen and other nutrients

were removed from agricultural waste waters, boron and exotic

chemicals still left would contribute to an underwater "smog",

generally affecting first the most highly prized species, namely

fish.  Traces of insecticides as low as fractional parts per

billion are stored by various metabolic processes in fish to

where they are unfit for human consumption when they are finally

caught.  Each year more and more of these exotic chemicals are

                          - 10 -

introduced into agriculture with little or no knowledge of the

effects they might have on the aquatic food chain involved.

Water used by homes and industries also becomes degraded by

being loaded with wastes before being discharged by treatment

plants *  More than 60 sewage plants discharge as much as 400

million gallons per day (mgd) into the Bay-Delta system.  Human

and certain industrial wastes contain nutrients in such abundance

that they need to be further oxidized to become harmless.  When

these wastes enter a body of water they also require oxygen

to decompose, as in the case of dying algal blooms.  This

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is furnished by the dissolved

oxygen (DO) in the water.   The amount of oxygen and water

available for the disposal of wastes is called the assimila-

tive capacity of the receiving water and is considered a

beneficial use of that river or bay.  The assimilative capacity

of the Bay-Delta estuarine system is not limitless.  Allowing

a minimum of 5 ppm of dissolved oxygen for the sustenance of

aquatic biota, not much more than another 5 ppm is available

for the reduction of waste.

Combine the BOD of nutrient-induced algal blooms from

agricultural drains with rapidly rising volumes of human and

industrial wastes, add to this the many new exotic chemicals,

and couple it all with drastic reductions in minimum and

                          - 11 -

purging flows and you have the specter of a total kill of the

region's aquatic life.

                      THE PERIPHERAL CANAL

Prior to the state's project at Oroville and its aqueduct

from Tracy to Los Angeles, the Federal pumps serving the

Delta-Mendota canal caused several problems.  One is the

pumping out of some 35 million floating striped bass eggs

yearly, another the trapping of up to 40 thousand small fry a

day which are powerless against the 3-1/2 mph intake current.

These are diverted by louver screens into tanks for delivery

to safer areas farther away.  Bottom feeding fish are also

adversely affected by fast flows.  Another problem has been

the reversal of normal flows within the Delta, with water flow-

ing to the pumps rather than to sea.  This tends to confuse

fish that migrate/ such as salmon, causing many to become lost

and to fail to spawn.  Another detrimental factor to the fishery

has been a pollution block near Stockton.  Finally, San Joaquin

River return flows containing agricultural wastes have caused

some deterioration of water quality at the pumps.

The state's demands at their pumps will aggravate these con-

ditions, presumably depressing the water level of many channels

enough to pull sea water in through the open corner at Antioch
                          - 12 -

and causing further reductions in quality.  The pumps, how-
ever, will serve both agriculture and the metropolitan centers
in southern California, the latter having set more stringent
quality as well as quantity standards on what they are to
receive.  Delta water will no longer meet the standards if it
is permitted to mix with sea water inflows and San Joaquin
River return flows.

It is imperative now that the Delta be by-passed in order to
preserve water quality at the export pumps and that a joint
Federal-State project, a common channel, be built to tap the
Sacramento River near Hood.  Canal design provides for release
facilities at various points in the hope that the composite flow
toward Antioch will keep sea water out, flush pollutants from
the Delta, and maintain the quality of the fish habitat.
Apparently certain kinds of game fish will spawn only in
waters containing less than 180 ppm  (parts per million) of
dissolved salts.  Releases from the canal will be needed to
assure good spawning areas.  Releases near Stockton could also
do much to help remove a pollution block near Stockton which
has practically stopped San Joaquin River fish migrations.
The matter of how much water to release when and where from
the peripheral canal is still open to discussion.  Plans at
                          - 13 -

present allow releases totaling roughly 1.5 million acre feet

a year for studies alone with no assurance that this is the

minimum amount.  Also under discussion is the minimum flow re-

quired for fish migrations in the Sacramento River below the

intake facilities.  The U. S. Pish and Wildlife Service would

like not less than 1,500 cfs but there is no guarantee that

this amount will be available in certain dry years.
                          - 14 -


    The following conclusions are based on the discussion

and on a review of the generally available literature

listed under "References":

1.  Planned reductions in Delta outflow to a 1,500 cfs

    minimum will promote salt water intrusion into Delta

    waterways and thus shift the salt-to-fresh water

    gradient as much as 20 miles upstream.  This will change

    the ecology within the transition zone and may kill the

    marshes presently supporting bird migrations along

    the Pacific Flyway.

2.  Delta inflow reductions will adversely affect water

    quality within the Bay-Delta system.  Low flows will

    contribute to the stagnation of the Delta's internal

    waterways, reduce the rate of removal of municipal,

    industrial, and agricultural wastes, and adversely

    affect fish reproduction and migrations.

3.  Upstream storage and diversion projects will probably

    reduce seasonal "purging" flows to insignificance.

    These flows appear necessary to effectively remove

    accumulating pollutants from the Bay-Delta system.
                          -  15 -

4,  Continued increasing discharge of human and industrial

    waste into the system may overload its assimilative

    capacity, especially with reduced advective flows.

    Overloading asphyxiates fish and other marine forms by

    reducing the available supply of oxygen.

5.  The planned introduction of agricultural drainage wastes

    into the Bay-Delta system may have severely adverse

    effects on the region's aquatic ecology.  The effect of

    nutrients will be to further tax the assimilative capacity;

    exotic chemicals may cause underwater 'smog1 contribute

    to fish kills, and have long-term side effects.

6.  Construction of a canal from the pumps to bypass the

    Delta is probably necessary to mitigate the effects of

    increased pumping on the Delta fishery and Delta water


7.  Peripheral Canal intake facilities, operating near design

    capacity, may prove to be a severe handicap to migrating

    fish.  Proper releases from the canal, however, may

    improve water quality and the fish habitat in the southern


8.  The proposed widening and  deepening of the navigational

    channels to Stockton and Sacramento may have possible
                          - 16 -

    adverse effects on water quality by allowing salt

    water to intrude below reduced fresh water outflows.

9.  Thermal pollution, although not discussed, may reduce

    oxygen content, alter marine biota, and interfere with

    migrating fish.
                          - 17 -


1.  Minimum guaranteed Delta fresh water outflows should

    be at least 4,600 cfs and never less than 3,300 cfs

    at any time.  This minimum will hopefully preserve

    San Francisco Bay water quality by aiding the steady

    removal of wastes;  it should help to save Suisun Marsh,

    a great wildfowl resource;  it may protect the anadro-

    mous fishery and maintain the Delta as a prime recrea-

    tional asset for millions in northern California.

2.  Seasonal 'purging1 flows should be at least 2 million

    acre feet in any one month, 3 million acre feet in

    any two consecutive months, or 4 million acre feet in

    any four consecutive months, until Bay-Delta pollution

    and contamination loadings are drastically reduced.

3.  All disposals of municipal, industrial/ and any other

    wastes into the Bay-Delta system should be brought up

    to "secondary plus chlorination" levels as soon as

    possible.  Plans for tertiary treatment should be

    initiated now.

4.  The Bay-Delta system should be considered a prime

    regional recreational asset and should be included in

    federal and state projects and plans as such.  The

                          - 18 -

    attaching of "pocket" parks to future development

    in no way compensates for the possible loss of en-

    vironmental quality within the entire area.

5.   Under no circumstance should the proposed agricultural

    drains enter the Bay-Delta system, denitrified or not.

    Off-shore ocean trench dispersal is to be recommended

    as the less offensive alternative.  Impetus should be

    given to legislation requiring the use only of short half-

    life or biodegradable exotic chemicals.

6.   The Peripheral Canal should be built as soon as

    practicable, providing firm assurance is given that

    proper releases to Delta channels will serve to guarantee

    item 1 above, protect Delta water quality, and maintain

    the Delta fish habitat.

7.   Fish screening and diverting devices of the latest

    design should be provided at the Hood intake, and

    adequate flows should be assured in the Sacramento River

    below Hood.  A minimum of 1,500 cfs is under considera-

    tion by the State Department of Fish and Game.

8.   Corps of Engineers projects for widening and deepening

    navigational channels should be tested in model form

    first to insure that they will not hasten the tidal

    inflow of salt water.

                          - 19 -

 9.  Thermal pollution effects on estuarine ecology should

     be thoroughly investigated before massive heat

     insertions are permitted.
10.  All water storage, flood control, and hydroelectric

     projects within the state, whether federal, state, or

     utility managed, should be integrated for computer

     logic control in order to best manage our water resource.

11.  The basic Bay-Delta system outflow minimum (item 1 above)

     should be written into policy and law.  Upstream storage

     capacity should be allotted to meet this requirement,

     and sufficient releases should be made solely for the

     purpose of maintaining regional water quality.

12.  Further diversions, planned but not approved, should

     not take place from the Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed.

13.  We should not encourage the short-sighted exploitation

     of the state's north coast watersheds; we should rather

     insist on accelerated plans and projects for desalting

     sea water.
                           - 20 -

     Water Quality Criteria, State Water Quality Control

Board, Pub. 3A, 1963

     California Water Project in 1967, Department of Water

Resources, Bull. 132-67, June, 1967

     Delta and Suisun Bay Water Quality Investigation/

Department of Water Resources, Bull. 123, August, 1967

     San Joaquin Master Drain, Department of Water

Resources, Bull. 127, January, 1965

     San Joaquin Master Drain, Federal Water Pollution

Control Agency, January, 1967

     Disposal System for Agricultural Waste in San

Joaquin Valley — San Luis Drain, Pafford and Price,

Bureau of Reclamation, March, 1968

     Peripheral Canal Unit, CVP, Report on the Feasi-

bility of Water Transfer in the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, April, 1966

     Review of Bureau of_ Reclamation, April, 1966, Feasi-

bility Report on the Peripheral Canal, CVP, California

Department of Water Resources, July, 1966

     Water Development and the Delta Environment, Sum-

mary Progress Report No. 7 on Delta Fish and Wildlife

Protection, California Resources Agency, December, 1967
                          - 21 -

     Plan of Development, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,

Interagency Delta Committee, Jan. 1965

     Final Report, Phase lf Suisun Soil Conservation

District, Aug. 1966

     Water Resources Development in California, Corps

of Engineers, Jan. 1967

     San Francisco Bay to Stockton, Calif.  House Document

No. 208, 89th Congress, 1st Session, GPO 1965

     San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Program,

Preliminary Report, Summary Edition, Feb. 1966

     San Joaquin Valley Drainage Investigation, Dept. of

Water Resources Bull. 127, Jan. 1965

     Study of_ Effects . . ». San  Luis Interceptor Drain and

State San Joaquin Valley Master Drain.  Metcalf & Eddy,

Oct. 1964

     Water Pollution and San Francisco Bay, BCDC, July


     Augmentation of the Colorado River by Desalting of

Sea Water, Bureau of Reclamation, Jan. 1968

     Bolsa Island Nuclear Power and Desalting Plant

MWD, DWP, etc., May 1967

     Drinking Water Standards  USPHS, 1962

     East Side Division, CVP, Summary, Bureau of

Reclamation, Jan. 1965

                          - 22 -

     Natural Resources of Northwestern California, Dept.

of the Interior, 11 Volumes, 1956 to 1960

     Water Pollution and San Francisco Bay, San Francisco

Bay Conservation and Development Commission, July and

August, 1967

     Toxicity, Its Importance as a Design Parameter in

San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Program,

San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Program,

April, 1968

     Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin Streams, California,

House Document No. 367, 81st Congress, 1st Session,

U. S. GPO, 1950

     Central Valley Basin, Senate Document 113, 81st Congress,

1st Session, August 1949

     Water Supervisor's Report, 1924-1928, Division

of Water Resources, 1928

     Central Valley Project, Annual Reports 1965, 1966,

1967, Bureau of Reclamation

     Alternative Solutions for Drainage, San Luis Unit,

CVP, Bureau of Reclamation, May 1964

     Study of Nitrate and Mineral Constituents from Tile

Drainage in the San Joaquin Valley, Calif.  L. D. Doneen,

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Nov. 1966

     Predicted Suspended Sediment Inflows to the San

Francisco Bay System,  R» B. Krone, FWPCA, Sept. 1966

                          - 23 -

     Implementation of the California Water Plan,

Department of Water Resources,  Bull. 160-66, Mar. 1966

     Quality of Water,  (CVP)  W. R. Schoonover, Bureau of

Reclamation, Oct. 1963

     Economic Evaluation of Water Quality Aspects, CCCWA,

Metcalf & Eddy, Nov. 1965

     Ecological Effects of Federal-State Water Planning op

the Delta Fisheries,  F. H. Tarp, Mar. 1967
                          - 24 -


P.O. BOX 9137
                                                         MAR 101969
          Mr.  James  McCarty
          Pacific  Southwest Region
          Federal  Water Pollution Control Administration
          760  Market Street
          San  Francisco, California  94102

          Dear Mr. McCarty:

                     Our representative, who attended  the  public
          meeting  of February 18 and 19 on Water Quality  Manage-
          ment for Estuarine Areas, advises me that the June  1968
          preliminary report of the Sierra Club's Bay-Delta Water
          Quality  Subcommittee, was made a part of the official
          transcript of the proceedings.

                     At the request of Mr. Eugene A. Brodsky,
          Conservation Chairman, Sierra Club, the Department
          reviewed and furnished comments to the San  Francisco
          Bay  Chapter on this preliminary report.  By this  letter
          I am furnishing you with a copy of our comments and
          request  that they be made part of the official
          transcript which, I understand, remains open until
          March 1H,  1969.

                                      Sincerely yours,
                                      Carl A. Werner
                                      District Engineer

          cc:   Mr. W.  A.  Alexander, Vice Chairman
                State Water Resources Control Board
                Rm. llMO,  1416 Ninth Street
                Sacramento, California  95814

                                                 DEC10 13S8
::lp, Eugene A. Brodsky
Conservation Chairiaan
Sierra Club
3an ?r»n«lsco Bay Chapter
€67 - ^Tth Avenue
San Francisco, California
          whanfc you for  thft  opportunity to review and eorr.t**r.t on
your preliminary import  of June 19^9 on Bay -Delta viater Quality.
The list of references cited eortainly shows extensive effort on
your part to b«x:o^« informed on this ratter.
          The Department  shares  your objective of -protecting the
environment of the Bay an-1  Celta for uae as E pri/.'.e recr
4nd fish and wildlife resource,  as  a necessary p'irt of cl
the water r03ourcv43 to seat th&  prowin-i?: ns^is of the people of
the State.  We arc pursuing procrarss which we believe* will achieve
ths best ns9 of !>elta water for  tho greatest number of p^opla and
will provide for fche lon^-ranr.^  welfare of the r.tate na a whole,
inaludijif!: the Delta area.   fr?ith  thin in sinr the follovr-
ing consents for your consideration.

          Your report ia  directed toward possible dansfe to the
Delta anat recognition should be ^iven to
         belnrj undertaken  at all levels of £cvernr;«nt to sialntain
and improve the region's er.virojvnent .   Constitutional an<3 legis-
lative nandates that guide tliese pro?3«asia must also be considered?
          (1)  Article?  1JI,  Section  3*  of t?ie California
     Constitution, requires that waters  of the f=t^.te ba
     -ased in a reaBonablG and "t>en&fi?ial manner, without

ir. Fu^enc  A,  Brodsiq
                                                       ••'' ."" "1
           (2)  Section 12202 of the -fatr-r Cc-Je provides
     for salinity  control an3 substitute v««-:i by the I>e~Isl",tui'e In
     1959  to scr'Vft ^3 a frc-^ayork to r[^l^yt for
salinity control and redistribution of '.;atsr will provl-J* a so>in-1
base coiiditlon for nlncral quality of Delta  writer on which effec-
tive pollution controls can be administered. All of these sieasar^
ar$ necessary to assure nn adequate water supply for the Delta,
Contra Costa  County, and the State as a whole,
                «se of our w^itar resources  require thftt outflows
of u»sfc3'f-'iia  vatev flo^fin^ through the Delta  to control oc^^n
sj^linity intrusion •susjt be rensonttble ar.d  not wasteful,  "four
report correctly points cut that severer  salinity conditicns
existed, in the  Delta in 192*1 airl 1931.   In fact, before' .I'l-ata
Reservoir be> operation In 19^*i» ssvora  sslinity intritdecl
the interior Dolta in
                         out  of
           Slnca that tine, bo-tevsr-, the  effects of rea^iter intr vi-
sion have  be«?n cor/«Jvl to ti;e w«;st of  "io Yista hv releac^s of
stored water.   Hathei* than iners*_oo the  fresh'.fptax^ flc-.-r through

                                                         DEC 10 1988

the L-elt-a ?.:;-.i into  the eeo?.n  to tho point  of v:?.£t'<5 fulness, we
r.r'ov;cse ovcx"lr,n.l  transportation of hi^h-quality water  to ?rcci.v  in
thr- v;«stc-rr; 7'eltc. ^h-r-re t-h;.t  »-.ot"ic-5 is -.or-i  efficient  thr\r: d-livcri^
thrtu ;h natural Oh-insiela.  lids follo'^s t!io  Ii»l5tivo  cuIcJcXlros'
sot fortn In Section 12202 of tas u'ater C.>de.

           In the  fintil analysis» criteria  for s-il.tnity control
sust bo established in conjunction with v-.t-zr rights po:;;3its for
tho r»tato --isitnr Project ?n;5 the Gent:--al Valley Project,  sincr; ths
ostr-ut  of salinity  irJt:-usic-n  into thr- r-elt-a  is controllc-5 by
    j-sse of storcu w^ter fro.n  thc-eo nrojr-ct-s.
           f'croovoi*.  the Dcpa^t^.sn'c f"'O!?s riOt  pl,*sn to rsduc->? the
^i,vtl.'.,ii;i  Delta outflow to any  specif Ic-i amount, such as  1,500
se>'ic-n."i-,fo'v»t •  '."JC'tli our I-'epir-t'ient. fmrf tho  i.T. ;•;, r-ui>s-?;-j  of
5;c,i3,a,v.at5,on n-ivoca.t-? operation of t'aeir ras^cativ-? projocta so s?
tc r;.,ee'c  tVie w^ter quality criteria oet out in tho '•Jov^-.bof 10,
1255 r-r-lta •-;'atp-f ^unlity Cratcviia» rararilf-s^ of th^ arount of
?:ster i'squirc-d for th't purpose,   /« co*-^ of  this cH t.^rl.u 15 en-
             ouf inrorr^tion.   This i-:r>prc;;c'i  avoids tl^e  n-?e i to
             r!.lnl~ur!:.  cutflo^,  '.^hich ffxinno'1;  -o s.cearnt-'."ly ? :?oc;i; :c .?-.!,
M,H::cr t-".-'\n shlftitv. t'v^ sal^^lt-y /r-'^.is-^t ^?0 r^ilss v. rest re-;"1, ar,
in^iontcJ In your report, t'"O ir/ur^L-lc-n v.-ill not be nUc-vrrd to
advance  upstresr. any fai-t'-c-r  tU:--,n it his nij-c-s ths bsrir.r.Jrc of
opor-i'itio:; of Hhciista  Hoservoir. vhis Is over- 20 Vll^s il2™l"ii?"" IS'
rro:-; the- liictcrle intrusion th.-;-t  cccurrea  in 19?.l.

           7hc- MOVG^bcr 1", 13-«5 criteria have been sr-r-»ed to hy
rnprosontatives oC t'^.s U, S,  v-stronn of "C3la.'.:at4c!j, t:ia C^liforni;
D«par-tr-6nt of VJator  Hosourceft, tho Sacr^ersuO Uivei'-^clfca water
Apsool-.ttlon, an":00 p«rts o-sr
nillion  chloriue line will not be allowed  to lr«tr?i-ltj upstr~-a^ any
fai-ther  than Dreraton (on l?h^r-.--an  Tnlan;i) in  the recro.- onto River,
and Jersey Point (ofi Jerooy Island) in the San ,
'Phis constitutes a vent liAprwcnent- ov\;r natural hishoric E'jlir.ity
conditions in the De-lta.  The? criteria also  provide for sprln,:-
tir^ flushing to the extent that  ve-e-n cla.ily  chlorides v/ill not
exesad SCO pp,r» for at lea-st 10 consecutive flays 'iurin---  April or-
Jir.y at tha Einrjatori-Jei'ooy T'oint stations.  In a

                                                       _, r_ v,' -•*. '-*  jv^v 0'
fr:v'!2woi'!c In  which ti-ost, an 2 pes'haoe  all,  ^r.vlrorr^ental n-secls  of
fish &n3 othor aquatic life can be atfcains-a with proper operation
of the Peripheral Canal,  A copy is enclose"! for your Information.

          Insofar fts the San Joanuin  I>J'aln Is concerned, vre r^cort-
nise that r.o  one has a "ri^ht to pollute waters of the otate".
Treatment of  the drain waters will be ur/'-erta^en to the degree
that ±s necessary to protect the Delta,

          Responsibility .for controlling vatsr pollution re-sts
with the Regional w'y.ter Quality Control  3-oaris srvi the State Water
Resources Control lioarcU  This applies to  the ^ari Jcaquin Drain
as well.  As  you tire aware, the 3t->.ts "e-tvrd is 3o*iductir.s- tho  Can
Prariclnco B.iy-Dslta l/atcr Quality Control  Fror^n-j authorlsc-i l«y
the Legislature in 19*?5 to uctRraino  wh«t  can beat V.s s?.on& to
concoct- ani prevent pollution of tvatoi-R  of the S?%y-D«lta m*-:a,
caunec* by n;rri cultural draina.^a anl municipal an-3 itr'ustrisl v^-sto
water,  Ita fiscal recort to the I,r>£is,lature is ?iuo  e-:a»l
nest year.  To best serve tho public  interest, T t-eliov™ it woi*lu
be v/ell to eonsirfor rose'nouulin-/: cc^nlf?tion of you? report; for tt-.'o
03* thrs^ months so fch?vt -you eouid 'i-Vv*» th$ benefits!- of"
           Attache:! are dotsile-i cor:"&nto on the report pr-spai^-J Ly
the Depurtnont staff.  If you v/ould  ll^.e s-Jd1tional InfoJ^^ation,
pities feel  free to contact re at  your convf-nienc?.  If von  i/oulji
like *-2&;:.t>ers of oiir staff to discus?, t^c? is^nc? with your /TOUT,
please contact Mr. Carl A, Werr^r, district i'.n^inesr, ccnt-j'al
"Olfsfcrict,  Dc-partr-ent of V/ater r;e3oarocs» r>, O. ;;ox "9137}  rscra:="-sr(t
California  95315.
          Thank you a^ain for the  opportunity to r^v.lei?  r.ntl comen
on your report.

                                  Sincerely yours,

                                      w«  R.  Gianelli

cc:  Mr.  Claude A, Look, C^
     Kortlmrn California Conssrvat-ion Cor-tltteo
     n 11  Los Nines "-X?
     Los  Altosj California   9^022

     Dr.  £d.p;ar V/ayb-urn, President
     Sierra Club
     1050 Kills *?cv?er Suildin'-
     220  i;uah 5-trect
     San  Francisco, California


                                        SIERRA CLUB

                                      San Francisco Bay Chapter
I    -':•"••'':"•''^ ~   .   j                   October 14th, 1968
K '    ~~ *   ~° ~~'	*""'     ""^

   Mt. Tamilpais by Ptrkle Jones
  Mr. William R. Gianelli, Director
  Department of Water Resources                                       ,. .-
  Post Office Box 388                                               _,.'*  r~
  Sacramento, California
  Dear Mr, Gianelli:                  ,   .1--*^
                                  / tf ""'^'
       Your letter of September 23rd, 1968, addressed to Edgar
  Wayburn, M. D., has been referred to the San Francisco Bay
  Chapter for reply.

       We are very glad to learn that the Department of Water
  Resources shares our concern over preservation of water quality
  in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.  It v;as this concern which
  lead the Chapter to commence a study of the Bay-Delta and issue
  the Eiay-Delta' Water Quality Preliminary Report.  As the letter
  of transmittal indicates, however, the Report is preliminary
  and sets forth the views of the San Francisco Bay Chapter, and
  not those of the Club,  Although the preliminary Report was
  presented to the Northern California Regional Conservation
  Committee, no action has been taken to date by that Committee.

       We understand that your staff will have a further opportunity
  to meet with representatives of the Northern California Regional
  Conservation Committee prior to the adoption of the final
  recommendations.  Members of our Bay-Delta Water Quality Sub-
  cornmittee will take pert in such a conference.            v

       We hops that your Department will accept our invitation to
  submit written comments concerning the findings and recommendations
  of the Bay-Delta Water Quality Preliminary Report.  We would
  appreciate receiving such corrunents before _mid-November, and prior
  to any staff conference,                  ~r~
                / /

Kr. V7illiara R. Gianelli
October 14th, 19S3
Page - 2
     We trust  that  your Department and the Sierra Club  can
cooperate  in the  protection and enhancement of the Bay-Delta

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    SAN FFiANCISCO BAY CHAPTER
                                    SIERRA CLUB
EA3 :bara
cc:  Edgar Wayburn,  M. D.
                                          ne A. B rod sky
                                      'Corise'rvation Chairraan

by Ansel Acbms in Tiis I; l'r.( Air.:rU^:t £jr;J
                               SIERlvn.  V_,LUB     Mills Toucr, San Francisco 4
                                                                October 1,1958
                                                                4-11 Los Nines '..ray
                                                                Los Altos,  Calif.
                                                          "•70 I •-
                                                          S~"£  \
Kr, William R. Gianelli,  Director
Department of Water  Resources
p n  "JT' "}P?.                                              "  r^'.  /
r.w, .i_>o.^ ^^^                                                Vi  /
Sacrareento, Calif,                                          ^~ ^O

Dear Kr. Gianelli:

In regards to your letter of Septenbsr _23,19?8  in which you referred  to the Sierra
Club's Bay-Delta ".fatsr Quality Preliminary Report addressed, to Dr,  3dgar Wayburn.

I believe the report in question was issued by the Bay-Delta V/ater  Quality Committee
of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club ani not by the  Northern California
Regional Conservation Cor-dttse to which you refer.

The Northern California Regional Conservation Cor/criittee will fulfill its promise to
meet with the representatives of the Department of V.rater Resources  and ether agencies early date to  continue gathering the basic material needed  to complete the
report of the Northern California Regional Conservation CoiJLvdttee,

i/e regret, as did. the raeMbers of your staff, that there was insufficient time at our
meeting on June 22,1968 for a more detailed presentation' by the rcs-mbers of the Deoart-
Kent of Water Resources,   They did have riore than the 10-20 minutes to which you refer
but none the less it was not sufficient tine to cover such a complicated subject or
subjects.  It was a  case of our corjclttee trying to ccver too.  much  ground in too littl
time and 1 assurce full responsibility for this.

y/e appreciate yo\ir offer for the use of the facilities in the  Resources Buildinc for
a further discussion of the Bay-Delta problems.  We will contact  the rner.ibers of our
committee and then consult with your Department in regards to  a suitable date.
  cc- Dr. VJayburn
      Kr. KcCloskey
      Kr. Hunger
      tir. Brovsky
                                               Claude A, Look,
                                               Northern California Conservation,-u
                                               Sierra Club

                      DETAILED COMMENTS ON
          Listed below are detailed comments by the staff of the
Department of Water Resources on the "Bay-Delta Water Quality
Preliminary Report", June 1968.

          Page 2:   Under the heading "Discussion",  the
     last sentence is:

          "Finally, it describes the functions of a canal
     intended to bypass the Delta in order to assure water
     quality at the export pumps."

          The phrase "and within the Delta" should be added at
the end, since the Peripheral Canal not only bypasses the Delta,
but makes releases at key locations to serve the Delta's uses,
to help repel saline intrusion, and to improve conditions for
fish and other aquatic life.

          Page *J:   This page of the report goes into considerable
     detail over historical flow conditions that have occurred
     in the Delta and resultant saline intrusion.  We agree that
     severe salinity intrusion, during dry hydrologic years, was
     experienced in the Delta prior to the operation of the
     Central Valley Project.  However, since 19^,  summertime
     releases of stored water for salinity control from upstream
     reservoirs have prevented recurrence of such salt invasions.
     Under operation of the State Water Project, the maximum
     extent of saline intrusion will be approximately the same
     as has occurred under operation of the Central Valley
     Proj ect.

          Page 5:   The last sentence of the first paragraph is:

          "And as with historically recorded maximum and
     minimum flows, there is no assurance whatever that in the
     future conditions may not be worse than the seven
     critical years."

          We agree there is no such assurance that future hydro-
logic conditions may not be as severe.  However, mineral quality
conditions will never be as poor in the future as they were
prior to the operation of.the Central Valley Project.  Ability
to maintain suitable mineral quality water within the.Delta is
inherent in the coordinated  operation of the State Water Project
and the Federal Central Valley Project.  Fulfillment of the
November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria, a condition of
the water rights for the State Water Project and adopted as
interim water quality standards for the State Water Resources
Control Board, provides this guarantee.

          Page 7:  The first three sentences of the first
     paragraph are:

          "Heavy summertime pumping  when river inflows are low
     will cause salt water to be drawn into the Delta at Antioch.
     Salt incursions are detrimental not only to the municipal,
     industrial, and agricultural users, but to the adjacent
     marshlands as well.  Salt water unfit for irrigation might
     even reach the pumps during certain dry years."

          We recognize this relationship and it is built into
the joint operational criteria to provide adequate quality water.
One must realize that severe salinity intrusion was experienced
in the Delta prior to the operation of either the federal or
state water projects.  The Peripheral Canal will eliminate the
possibility of saline water being drawn into the Delta by the
pumps.  The state and federal projects, of which the Peripheral
Canal is a portion, will be operated within the limits of the
November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria.  This, in turn,
provides for a westerly flow past Chipps Island which will
prevent such flow reversals.  In addition, releases will be
made at key locations along the Peripheral Canal to freshen
the quality of Delta waters, to assure a westerly flow past
Antioch, and to improve conditions for the Delta fishery.

          Pages 7 and 8:  These two pages infer numerical outflov/s
     as being the solution to the preservation of water quality
     within the Delta.

          The waters flowing into the Delta must be managed for
the protection of its legally vested rights and for the greatest
public good.  No solution is meaningful unless a proper balance
between these needs is achieved.  Quality limits, such as the
November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria, are an effective
method of preserving the Delta's mineral water quality.  Regard-
less of amount, the flow necessary to meet these criteria will
be released from upstream reservoirs.  This establishes an
effective base condition for mineral quality and upon which
effective measures for controlling pollution can be employed.

          Page 10:  This page discusses and makes some rather
     profound statements on the effects of agricultural drain
     water.  In reality, much of the discussion presented is
     conjecture with respect to the drain.  The inference that
     drain waters mixed with Bay waters will promote rapid algal
     growth is not based on fact.  In reality, there is an
     excess of nitrogen present in the Bay waters now with no
     algal growth.  Studies indicate that light penetration
     may be the controlling factor.  The last sentence:

          "Each year more and more of these exotic  chemicals
     are introduced into agriculture with little  or no knowledge
     of the effects they might have on the aquatic  food chain

is incorrect.  Facts show less and less chlorinated hydrocarbons
are in use in San Joaquin Valley.  For example:   None, according
to the records, were used in Stanislaus County in 196?.

          Pages 11 and 12:  The last paragraph on page 11,  which
     carries over to page 12, is overdone.  The specter of  a
     total kill of the region's aquatic life is an impressive
     statement but not based on fact.  Many studies are being,
     or have been, undertaken by many agencies to find ways to
     preserve the Delta and Bay.  Two examoles of such studies
     are the cooperative Delta Fish and Wildlife  Protection
     .Study.undertaken jointly by the Department of Fish and
     Game and Department of Water Resources, and  the Bay-
     Delta Water Quality Control Program being conducted by
     the State Water Resources Control Board.  The latter is
     a special planning program established by the Legislature
     to determine the best means of correcting and preventing
     damages to the quality of the San Francisco  Bay and Delta
     waters which may be caused by drainage and waste-water
     discharges, or by other activities that may  lead to water
     contamination or pollution.  This program's  findings and
     recommendations are scheduled to be presented in a report
     to the Legislature in January 1969.

          Page 12:  The first paragraph on this page deals  with
     the Delta fishery, while the last sentence deals with  the
     return flows of the San Joaquin River causing some
     deterioration of water quality at the pumps.

          We suggest that the following excerpt be added:

          "The Departments of Water Resources and Fish and
     Game, along with the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, are
     actively taking steps to protect the Delta fishery.
     Releases from the Peripheral Canal not only  will
     freshen the quality of waters within the Delta, but
     will improve conditions for the Delta fishery as well."

          Pages 12 and 13:  The last paragraph on pae-e 12
     which continues on page 13, cites reduction in Delta
     water quality due to pumping.  It also mentions
     quality and quantity standards for Southern  California.

          All water resources planning in the State, not just the
Delta, is predicated upon wise conservation and use of water.
Maintenance of the November 19, 1965 Delta Water  Quality Criteria
will limit the extent of maximum salinity intrusion into the
Delta to essentially the same levels as experienced today and


will provide far better mineral quality water in the Delta than
existed in dry hydrologic years prior to the operation of the
Federal Central Valley Project.


          No. 1:  This conclusion states that planned reductions
in'Delta outflow will promote saltwater intrusion into Delta
waterways and thus shift the salt-to-fresh water gradient as
much as 20 miles  upstream, change the ecology of the transition
zone, and may kill the marshes presently supporting bird migrations
along the Pacific Flyway.

          No plan advocated by the Department of Water Resources,
or any responsible agency, shifts the salinity gradient 20 miles
upstream.  The November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria
provides that salinity will not intrude into the Delta any
farther than it does now.  This is more than 20 miles downstream
from historic salinity intrusion occurring in 1931.  The Depart-
ment advocates that this criteria be met by project operation
regardless of the amount of outflow required.

          No. 2:  This conclusion states that Delta inflow
reductions will adversely affect water quality within the Bay-
Delta system, and cites possible effects of such a reduction.

          The Peripheral Canal, when operational, will provide
for transfer of water around the Delta to the state and federal
pumping plants, isolated from the existing Delta channels.  Works
will be included to release water along its route to serve the
functions of water quality control for local water supply,
repulsion of sea water, and fish and wildlife protection and
enhancement.  The Peripheral Canal has additional advantages
over other plans studied, in that it will not interfere with
navigation, recreation, and boating use in the Delta, nor add
to problems of seepage or flood control.  Removal of exports
directly from the southern Delta channels will stop present
drawdown and possible scour problems.  However, no one has the
right to pollute and the waste discharges will have to be
controlled to prevent adverse effects from pollution.

          No. 3:  We agree that "flushing" should be provided
for the Delta.  In fact, provisions for flushing the Delta to the
extent that chlorides will not exceed 200 ppm at Jersey Point
and Emmaton at the beginning of the irrigation season are made
In the November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria.

          No. *J:  We agree that increasing discharge of human
and industrial wastes into the system may overload its assimilative

          Waste assimilative capacity in the western Delta results
from a complex relationship of many factors including aeration,
tidal diffusion, photosynthesis, etc.  Tidal action overshadows
net outflow as a source of dissolved oxygen in the western Delta
during the critical summer months.   Only during large floods
does the outflow contribute a substantial amount of dissolved
oxygen to the waters of the western Delta.  Consequently, the
effect, if any, of project operations on the assimilative capacity
will be negligible, since project facilities will not reduce
the total outflow significantly during periods of large floods.

          In regard to accumulating pollutants in the Bay and
Delta, no one has the right to pollute.  The need for, and feasi-
bility of, a master waste collection and disposal system to serve
the entire Bay-Delta area is the subject of the current Bay-
Delta Water Quality Control Program authorized by the Legislature
in 1965.  This study is being conducted by the State Water
Resources Control Board and the results are to be presented to
the Legislature early in 1969.  To the extent that any facility
of the State Water Project contributes to the pollution of any
waters, the Department has and will participate with other
contributors to assess and correct or prevent the problem.

          No. 5:  It is recognized that certain conclusions may
have been drawn from material outside of that appearing within
the report.  However, this one is not supported by facts-
Reference is made to a presentation by Raymond Walsh, Project
Director, San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Program,
to the Advisory Water Commission of San Joaquin C-ounty Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, August 28, 1968, Stockton,
California.  It points out that for outflows up to 4,000 cfs,
discharge of San Joaquin agricultural drainage has a beneficial
effect on TDS concentrations.  The statement that the effect of
nutrients will be to further tax the assimilative capacity,
cannot be stated as a certainty.

          No. 6:  We agree that construction of a Peripheral
Canal to bypass the Delta is necessary to negate the effects of
increased pumping on the Delta fishery and Delta water quality.

          No. 7:  We agree that Peripheral Canal intake facilities,
operating near design capacity, might prove a handicap to migrat-
ing fish.  Consequently, studies are under way to prevent or
reduce this impairment.  Proper releases from the Canal will
improve water quality and fish habitat in the Delta.

          No. 8:  We agree that the proposed widening and deepen-
ing of the navigational channels to Stockton and Sacr-amento may
require additional outflow for the retardation of salinity
intrusion.  But, regardless of the outflow required, we will
operate our project to meet the November 19, 1965 Delta Water
Quality Criteria.
                              — 5—


          No. 9:  We agree that thermal..pollution, though not
discussed, could reduce oxygen content, alter marine biota, and
interfere with migrating fish.  This is a form of pollution and
comes under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control
Boards and the State Water Resources Control Board.


          No. 1:  Water quality, and not quantity, should be the
primary consideration when discussing protection of the Bay and
Delta area.  This region has, and always will have, a large
quantity of water.  Thus, rather than citing specific quantities
of water to protect only San Francisco Bay water quality, vie
believe that by maintenance of the November 19, 1965 Delta Water
Quality Criteria and construction of overland water supply
facilities in the extreme western Delta, the water quality and
water supply of the Delta-Bay system will be protected.  The
Peripheral Canal is the Delta facility that will provide the
greatest benefit to the Delta fishery by eliminating the effect
of pumping on the Delta channels and controlling water quality.

          Cooperative studies by the Departments of Water Resources
and Pish and Game to preserve the wildlife resources of Suisun
Marsh are under way and have been for several years.  They will
define the relationship between future channel salinity and
soil salinity in the marsh, and the effect on waterfowl fish
plants.  They also will determine what effects, if any, water
project operation will have on the Suisun Marsh waterfowl
habitat.  Results of this study are scheduled for publication by
July 1, 1970.

          No. 2:  Some "purging" or "flushing" appears to have
a beneficial effect upon the Delta and Bay.  Rather than specify-
ing flow, the effects of which are largely unknown, the desired
results of such a process are spelled out in the November 19,
1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria.

          No. 3=  We agree that all waste loadings should be
treated to the maximum extent practical.  However, the Bay-
Delta Water Quality Control Program is considering the level of
treatment necessary for all types of waste loadings.  Until
results are submitted to the Legislature, it appears a bit
premature to recommend any specific degree of treatment.

          No. 4:  Rather than say that the Bay-Delta system should
be considered a prime recreational asset, we suggest you be more
positive and say it is considered a prime recreational asset.

          No. 5:  This recommendation is not supported by fact,
but on emotion.  Food and drug laws exist now, and are continually
evolving, that require the use only of short half-life or bio-
degradable exotic chemicals.


          No.  6:   We agree that the Peripheral Canal  should be
built as soon as  practical, with proper releases to Delta channels
to protect Delta  water quality, and to maintain and improve
conditions for fish.

          No.  7:   We agree that fish screening and diverting
devices of the latest proven design should be provided at the
Hood intake, and  that the water in the Sacramento River below
Hood be of adequate quality to meet all designated beneficial
uses .

          No.  8:   We agree that model testing would be useful to
study the possible effects of channel improvements on salinity

          No.  9:   We agree that the effects of thermal pollution
on estuarine ecology should be investigated.

         No. 10:   We agree, California's water resources should
be properly managed.  The recommendation for integrated computer
control of all water projects is unrealistic.  The State Water
Project and the Federal Central Valley Project are under integral
operation at this time, and will continue to be operated in
such a manner.

         No. 11:   We agree that the Bay-Delta system  should be
and is, protected in policy and law.  However, rather than citing
outflow minimums, a more rational method would be to cite quality
limitations such  as the November 19, 19&5 Delta Water Quality
Criteria.  Releases of stored water from upstream reservoirs
have been made for water quality control and such releases will

         No. 12:   This recommendation is totally impractical,
and we are surprised the Sierra Club would even consider adopting
such a statement.  It fails to consider the California Constitution,
legislative mandates, and the California Water Code.   No area
of the State can  be placed in a preemptive position over another
area.  The waters of the State, a precious resource,  must be put
to beneficial use, without waste.

         No. 13:   We agree there should be no short-sighted
exploitation of the northern watersheds.  Water is extremely
valuable and should be balanced among all beneficial  uses.  At
this time, desalination is not economically competitive in any

          Negotiations regarding Delta water problems have been in
progress among negotiating teams representing the following groups
and agencies:

          Sacramento River and Delta Water Association,
            representing the Delta areas shown on Plate  1
          San Joaquin Water Rights Committee, representing
            the Delta areas shown on Plate 2
          California Department of Water Resources
          United States Bureau of Reclamation

          Although the negotiating teans are not authorized to commit
the groups and agencies that they respectively represent, they do
approve the attached proposed Delta Water Quality Criteria dated
November 19, 1965, as an appropriate basis for further negotiations
leading to agreements between Delta interests and the operators of
the Federal and State projects affecting water supplies  in the Delta
which will assure the Delta area represented of a dependable supply
of water of suitable quality sufficient to meet its present ind future

          Dated:  November 19, 1965
Sacramento River and Delta
Water Association
California Department of Water
By Is/  John M. Luther
By /s/  Reginald C. Price
San Joaquin Water Rights
United States Bureau of
By /s/  John A. Wilson
By /s/ .E..F. Sullivan



Bureau of Reclamation
Department of Water Resources
San Joaquin Water Rights Corcaittee
Sacramento River and Delta Welter
  Association                                         November 19, 1965
                    DELTA WATER QUALITY_C_RIT_ERT.A

          A.  Pelt a A'rea;  Delta area will include both Delta lowlands

and Delta uplands and may include as much but no more than the area

described in Section 12220 of the Water Code of the State o£


          B,  Genera1 Objectives;  The general objectives of these

criteria are as follows:

              1.  To protect the Western Delta channels against the

     intrusion of ocean salinity.

              2.  To provide water of suitable quality in the interior

     Delta channels acceptable for the contemplated uses.

          C-  Definitions:   The definitions of certain tarms used in

these criteria are as follows:

              1.  "Critical year" shall mean any year in which either

     of the following eventualities exists:

                  a.  The forecasted full natural inflow to Shasf.a

          Lake for the current water year (October 1 of the preceding

          calendar year through September 30 of the current calendar

          year) is equal to or less than 3,200,000 acre-feet; or

                                                 November  19,  1S65

             b.  The total accumulated actual  deficiencies  belou

     4,000,000 acre-feet in the. itcnediately prior water year or

     series of successive prior water years each of which  had

     inflows of less than 4,000,000 acre-feet,  together with the

     forecasted deficiency for the current water year,  exceed

     800,000 acre-feet.

         2.  "Dry year" shall nean any year other than  a critical

year in which the forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake

for the current water year is equal to or less  than 4,000,000


         3.  "Below normal year;i shall mean any year in which

the forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the  current

water year is equal to or less than 4,500,000 ?"rf-feet but  more

than 4,000,000 acre-feet.

         4.  "Full natural inflow to Shasta Lake" shall mean the

computed inflow to Shasta Lake under present water development

above Shasta Lake.  In the event that a major water project  is

completed above Shasta Lake after September 1,  19o3, which

materially alters the present regimen of the stream systems

contributing to Shasta Lake, the computed inflow to Shasta Lake

will be adjusted to eliminate the effect of such water  project.

After consultation with the State, the Weather  Bureau,  and other

recognized forecasting agencies, the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation

will select the forecast to be used and will make the details of

                                                      Noveaber 19,  1965

     it available to the Delta water users.  The same forecasts used

     by the United States for the operation of the Central Valley

     Project shall be used to make the forecasts under this agreement.

     Such forecasts shall be made by February 15 of each year and may

     be revised as frequently thereafter as conditions and

     information warrant.

          D«  Quality Criteria:  The quality criteria for water in the

channels of the Delta required to satisfy the general objectives set

forth in Article B are as follows:

              1.  At Jersey Point in San Joaquin River and at Emmaton

     (southwest end of Horseshoe Bend) in Sacramento River, a mean

     daily chloride content of 1,000 parts per million or less when

     measured on the basis of the average mean daily value for any

     10 consecutive days, except that after August 1 of a critical

     year and until December 31 of the same. calendar-year-r-the

     quality criteria set forth above may be increased from 1,000

     parts per million to 1,400 parts per million of chloride.

              2.  At Jersey Point in San Joaquin River and at Emmaton

     in Sacramento River, an average mean daily chloride content of

     200 parts per million or less for a period of at least 10 con-

     secutive days each year at some time during the period between

     April 1 and May 31, except in dry or critical years.

                                                 November 19,  1965

         3.  At Terminous in Little Potato Slough,  at Rio Vista

in Sacramento River, at San Andreas Landing in San Joaquin River,

at Clifton Court Ferry in Old River, and after the initial

operation of the Peripheral Canal, at the bifurcation of Middle

River and Old River,

             a.  A mean daily total dissolved solids content of

     700 parts per million or less when measured on the basis of

     the average mean daily value for any 10 consecutive days,

             b.  A mean monthly total dissolved solids content

     of 500 parts per million or less when measured on the basis

     of the average mean daily value for any calendar month,

             c.  A mean annual total dissolved solids content of

     450 parts per million or less when measured on the basis of

     the average mean daily value for any calendar year.

         4.  After April 1 in a dry or critical year and after

August 1 in a below normal year and until December 31 of the

same calendar year, the total dissolved solids criteria specified

in Article D, Part 3, may reach, but not exceed, 800 parts per

million for item a, 600 parts per million for item b, and 500

parts per million for item c;  provided, however, the average of

the values of the total dissolved solids content at all of the

named locations shall not exceed, for the balance of the calendar

yeaf, the mean values specified in Article D, Part 3.

                                                      Novem'oer 19, 1965

              5.  Whenever the recorded total dissolved solids content

     in Sacramento River at Green's Landing exceeds a mean 10-day or

     a mean monthly value of 150 parts per million, the quality

     criteria in Article D, Parts 3 and 4 may be changed by adding to

     those values the product of 1-1/2 times the amount by which the

     recorded total dissolved solids content at Green's Landing

     exceeds 150.

          E.  Conditions Permitting Change of Location of Control

Stations at Emmaton and Jersey Point:  After 1980, the locations of

the control stations at Emmaton and Jersey Point may be moved upstream

to, but not beyond, (1) the south end of Threemile Slough in San

Joaquin River and (2) the north end of Threemile Slough in Sacramento

River and substitute water facilities provided for the area affected

by such move, if the parties agree that operating experience indicates

that the water quality criteria specified in Article D, Part 1 will

create undue hardship to the operators of the State or Federal projects,

and agree upon terms and conditions as may be authorized by law and

mutually agreeable to the parties at that time; provided, however,

nothing in this agreement shall be construed to waive whatever rights

the project operators may otherwise have to provide in the public

interest a substitute water supply in lieu of the water supply pro-

vided by these criteria subject to applicable law including the

obligations of the State under Sections 12200-12205 of the Water Code.

                                                      Noveraber 19,  1965

              After 1980, if operating experience indicates that the

water quality criteria specified in Article D is creating undue

hardship to the Delta water users, the quality of the water may be

improved if the parties so agree, and then upon such terms and

conditions as may be mutually agreeable to the parties.

          F.  Peripheral Canal and Other Projects:  The  proposed

Peripheral Canal, and any other projects of the United States or the

State of California, will be operated in such a manner so as not to

violate the foregoing objectives.  Flows in Sacramento River and

releases from Peripheral Canal into Delta channels will  be in such

quantities and at such locations as will provide the best quality of

water over the Delta as a whole and specifically not less than the

quality provided in Article D.

          G.  New Melones;  In the event New Melones Reservoir en

Stanislaus River is operated to provide water quality control, the

quality of the water in San Joaquin River at Vernalis will be main-

tained at 500 parts per million of total dissolved solids content or

less, when measured on the basis of the average mean daily value for

any 30 consecutive days, provided that not more than 70,000 acre-feet

shall be released from New Melones Reservoir in any one  calendar year

specifically for water quality, in addition to the water released for

fishery and other purposes and downstream prior rights.





                 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
                  AT SAN ANDREAS
         LOCATION  OF
                                                                                             NOV. 19, 1965

          Summary Progress) Report
                    REPORTf NO.
                    CEMBBR, 1967 / f
           THE RESQ(lR«S A(rfNCY/OF
              ,,-N.'B. L^VERMORE, Jr.,(lc/nutf^fro/or
Department of Water Reso
Department of Fish and Game

            State of California
          Summary Progress Report
 Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection Study
                Report No. 7
             A Cooperative Study
                   by the
         Department of Fish and Game
                   and the
        Department of Water Resources
                December 1967

          Special mention for assistance and
advice is made to Don Kelley of the Department
of Fish and Game and Wesley Steiner of the
Department of Water Resources who made many
helpful suggestions for content, organization,
and accuracy of the report.
                   - ii -

          The water and the fishery resources of California belong to all of
the people of our great State.   Our very existence,  physical well-being,  and
economy depend on water.  Moreover, much of our recreation and economy depend
on fish and the habitat that supports them.  For fullest benefit to the people,
both of these resources must be managed in a well-balanced program by the State
Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Game.

          The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is one of the most important areas
in California to the conservation and development to these two vital resources.
In 1961, the State Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Game, recogniz-
ing that the State Water Project would have a major  impact on the Delta environ-
ment for fish and wildlife, initiated the Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection
Study.  This report brings together under one cover  a summary of the more
important findings to date relative to the State Water Project, the selection
of the Peripheral Canal Plan, and the water entitlement agreements negotiated
with local Delta interests.  It sets forth a measure of the aquatic life and
the general concept for operation in relation to these agreements; reports
how fish and other aquatic life are affected by present Delta water operations;
and explains how and why the Peripheral Canal, properly operated, can enhance
as well as protect the fishery resources.

          One central theme stands out.  This is the importance of maintaining
and improving the Delta environment for fish and other aquatic life while
meeting California's water development needs.  In meeting this objective, the
Peripheral Canal Plan is enthusiastically supported  by the California Department
of Fish and Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

          Accomplishment of the broad goals of protection and enhancement of
the Delta's aquatic resources embraces a host of individual objectives.  Many
of those proposed or recommended by the fish and game agencies are discussed in
this report.  Some will be achieved automatically with construction and opera-
tion of the Peripheral Canal.  Others, however, require further study and
operating experience to evaluate the practical extent to which each of these
objectives can be accomplished by the project and to formulate appropriate
operating criteria.

          The establishment of additional water quality criteria at this time
could restrict a meaningful operating agreement between the Department of Fish
and Game and the project operators, and even negate the fishery enhancement
potential of the project.  Additional studies are required before specific
operating criteria are established.
William R. Gianelli, Director
Department of Water Resources
State of California
December 1967
Walter T. Shannon, Director
Department of Fish and Game
State of California
December 1967
                                     - iii -

                     State of California
                     The Resources Agency
        RONALD REAGAN,  Governor, State of California
      N. B.LIVERMORE,  Administrator, Resources Agency
  WALTER T. SHANNON, Director, Department of Fish and Game
WILLIAM R.  GIANELLI, Director, Department of Water Resources
                 The report was prepared by
  George H. Warner 	  Project Leader, DF&G
  John 0. McClurg  . . Chief, Delta Coordination Unit, DWR
              Biological studies were directed by
  Harold K. Chadwick 	 Department of Fish and Game
  John Skinner	Department of Fish and Game
             Engineering studies were directed by
  Robert E. Whiting  .... Department of Water Resources
  Gerald C. Cox  	 Department of Water Resources

                  Ira J. Chrisman, Chairman
  William H. Jennings                         Edwin Koster
  John P. Bunker                          William P. Moses
  Ray W. Ferguson                           Norris Poulson
  Clair A. Hill                           Marion R. Walker

                  T. H. Richards, President
  Henry Clineschmidt                         James Y. Camp
  W. P. Elser                            C. Ranson Pearman
                          -  iv  -

                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                                            ii

FOREWORD                                                  iii

ORGANIZATION                                               iv

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                                   vii

INTRODUCTION                                                1

     Fishery Resources                                      2
     Water Development                                      3
     Elements of Acceptable Solution                        I)
     The Peripheral Canal Plan                              4
     November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria         5

PRESENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS                            7

FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS                            11

     Benefits from Statewide Water Development and
       Salinity Control                                    14
     Automatic Benefits from the Peripheral Canal          15
     Benefits from Proper Operation of the Peripheral
       Canal                                               16

     (Summary of Economic Value of Improvements to
     Fishery Resources from Peripheral Canal, and Cost
     Allocation to Fish and Wildlife.  Includes Offi-
     cial Views of State of California and Department
     of Fish and Game)

CURRENT AND FUTURE STUDY PROGRAMS                          23


BIBLIOGRAPHY                                               29
                           - v -

                     TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)
          Peripheral Canal , Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta  xii
          Average numbers of crustacean zooplankters
          each season in various rivers in the Delta
          at different net water velocities

          Concentration of crustacean zooplankters in
          the Delta during 1963

          Channels where present and anticipated
          increases in flow reversal will be
          eliminated after operation of the
          Peripheral Canal

          Relative size of zooplankton population in
          June 1962 and predicted increases in popula-
          tion in June 1990 with the Peripheral Canal
          in operation

          Location of channels where shifting.sand
          substrate, observed in 1963 and 196*1,
          limited the production of zpobenthos, and
          areas where present and anticipated shifting
          sand sub.strate will be eliminated after the
          operation of the Peripheral Canal




Summary of the Effects of the Four Water
Plans on the Six Characteristics of the
Delta Environment Critical for the
Protection of Fishery Resources
                          - vi -


                      SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

          The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the  single  most
important area in California from the standpoint of conservation
and combined development of two vital resources  — water  and
          The Delta lies at the confluence of the  Sacramento and
the San Joaquin Rivers,-which together contribute  almost  one-half
of the full natural runoff of the State.   It covers 738,000 acres.
It is the common point of collection and  diversion to achieve  one
of the major objectives of the California Water  Plan — that of
conserving and transporting the State's surplus  waters of the
north to meet the fast-growing water needs to the  south and west.
          The Delta's 700 miles of meandering waterways form a
unique aquatic environment for the greatest variety of fish and
other aquatic life in California.  Salmon, striped bass,  shad,
catfish, and sturgeon represent the more  important game Tish
species.  In fact, about 25 percent of all warmwater and  anadro-
mous sportfishing in California, and about 80 percent of
California's commercial salmon fishing are dependent on the Delta
estuary in one way or another.
          Environmental conditions for fish and  other aquatic  life
have deteriorated in the Delta due to man's activities.  Adverse
conditions are due largely to upstream water development, coupled
with the impact of increasing federal and state  water transfer
and export pumping from the southern channels.  Localized waste
discharges compound the problem.
          As a result, there is at present:  interference with
migration of salmon and other anadromous  fish; loss of striped
bass spawning areas in the southern channels; loss of large
numbers of striped bass eggs and larvae which pass through louver
fish screens into the export pumps; decreases in aquatic  fish
food supply in the Delta channels that are used  for water transfer;
and great variation in the quantity of important  fish food
                              - vii -

available in the western Delta and the adjoining bays where extreme
and sudden changes in salinity now occur.
          Plans for correcting these and other problems associated
with fish and the aquatic environment are discussed in this
report.  These plans are the result of a comprehensive cooperative
study initiated in 1961 by the Department of Pish and Game and the
Department of Water Resources.  This study was designed to deter-
mine how to protect the fish and wildlife resources of the Delta,
in a manner compatible with construction and operation of the
State Water Project.  To date, over $2.5 million has been invested
in the program.  Of this, about 2/3 was devoted to biological
investigations and analyses and about 1/3 to related engineering
          The results of the studies that have been published to
date are contained in six annual reports and in two fish bulletins.
The annual reports contain a general account of the investigational
procedures and findings as the studies progressed.  The technical
aspects of the ecological studies are contained in Pish Bulletins
Nos. 133 and 136.  These and other references related to project
planning and fish and wildlife considerations are listed in the
bibliography to this report.  The inherent opportunities for
restoring and enhancing Delta fish and wildlife, determined by
that study, were major considerations in selecting the Peripheral
Canal as a joint state-federal facility over all other alterna-
tive plans for water transfer through the Delta.
          The Peripheral Canal Plan is the only plan studied
that can distribute a freshwater supply to the interior Delta,
and at the same time provide a positive downstream net flow
through all main Delta channels to San Francisco Bay.  By changing
the diversion point for export to the head of the Peripheral
Canal, the impact of water transfer and pumping from the southern
Delta on fish and other aquatic life will be eliminated.  The
Peripheral Canal was found to be the only plan that can protect
the fish and aquatic resources of the Delta and also provide
opportunities for their enhancement.
                              - viii -

          The Peripheral Canal will convey water for state  and
federal water projects around the eastern edge of the Delta in  a
new, 43-mile channel, hydraulically isolated from existing  Delta
channels.  It will be siphoned under the three major stream
crossings — the Mokelumne, the San Joaquin, and Old Rivers —  to
allow for flood passage, fish migration, and navigation.  Fish
will be screened at the headworks on the Sacramento River near
Hood.  Releases will be made at slough and river crossings  to
supply fresh water for agricultural use, water quality control,
and aquatic life.
          Salmon will benefit from improved conditions during
their peak migration periods.  A flow-reversal problem will be
eliminated and positive net downstream flows will be maintained in
most all Delta channels.  This will help prevent the buildup of
salts and pollutants and reduce dissolved oxygen sags.  A higher
proportion of home-stream water in the migration channels will
help guide migrating fish to their spawning beds.
          Striped bass will benefit from improved conditions,
particularly at spawning times.  The problem of egg and larvae
loss into the pumps will be greatly reduced.  Areas with flow and
quality conditions presently unsuitable for spawning in the
southern and eastern Delta will be made suitable.
          Catfish and other warmwater fish, which favor quiet
water, will benefit from a reduction in net flow in the present
water transfer channels.
          The joint-use Peripheral Canal will be operated in con-
junction with the reservoirs of the Federal Central Valley  Project
and the State Water Project, to guarantee the requirements  of the
November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria, negotiated  with
local interests by the Department of Water Resources and the U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation.  Final operational criteria of the
Peripheral Canal for fish and aquatic life have not been set.
Waterflow characteristics, including quantity, quality, velocity,
temperature, and direction of net flow, directly influence  the
aquatic environment.  The cooperative studies by the Department of
Fish and Game and the Department of Water Resources are continuing
with the goal of establishing the distribution and schedules of
releases from the Canal for these purposes.
                              - ix -

          Adequate knowledge for meeting the environmental objec-
tives for fish and other aquatic life is not yet available to
establish firm operating criteria for the Peripheral Canal.
However, the water quality criteria in the November 19, 1965 water
entitlement agreement provides a framework within which most, and
perhaps all, environmental objectives may be attained.   More pre-
cise information is needed concerning the factors controlling
dissolved oxygen, the time and location of striped bass spawning,
and the maintenance of an adequate population of Neomysis to
supply food for juvenile bass.  Such Information is essential both
to develop a specific canal-operating schedule for aquatic
resources and to relate these criteria to project capability.
Considerable effort is being directed toward this end in the
cooperative study program of the two departments.  Also, it is
intended that a meaningful period of trial operation be carried out
to assure the desired results before final operating criteria are
adopted.  The establishment of additional water quality c-riteria
could restrict the operating flexibility of the Peripheral Canal
and could prove to be a serious impediment to the development of
an operating agreement to accomplish the fish and wildlife objec-
tives of the project.
                               -  x  -



          The major conclusions to date resulting from project
planning and fish and wildlife studies of the Delta are summarized
          1.  At present, fish and other aquatic  life are
     adversely affected by export pumping, localized waste
     discharges, and upstream water developments;

          2.  Without remedial measures, adverse  conditions
     will worsen, coincident with increased export for
     authorized units of the federal and state projects;

          3.  State and federal legislation require protec-
     tion and consideration of enhancement of fishery
     resources in connection with the state and federal
     water projects, and -the overall water conservation
     and development needs of the State;

          4.  A joint state-federal Peripheral Canal offers
     the best opportunity to restore and enhance  the Delta's
     aquatic environment and fishlife;

          5.  The Peripheral Canal should be constructed at
     the earliest possible date;

          6.  The November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality
     Criteria, together with overland water facilities in
     the western Delta, are appropriate and necessary
     measures for carrying out the California Water Plan;

          7.  Work to date indicates that the Peripheral
     Canal and the November 19, 1965 Delta Water  Quality
     Criteria permit substantial operational flexibility to
     accomplish most, and perhaps all» environmental needs
     of fish and other aquatic life;

          8.  It is important to maintain operational
     flexibility.  Studies of factors controlling dissolved
     oxygen, striped bass spawning, and food sources for
     sustaining young bass need to be completed and opera-
     tional experience gained to assure that the  opportunity
     to protect and enhance the Delta's fishery resource
     becomes a reality; and

          9.  No one environmental factor should  be con-
     sidered in isolation.  Establishment of additional
     water quality criteria could preclude operation of the
     Peripheral Canal to protect and enhance fish and
     aquatic life, in balance with the overall development
     needs for California's water resources.
                              - xl -

                                                                                                           PLATE I
                                                                           FLOODGATES, HIGHWAY
                                                                           BRIDGE 8FISHSCREEN
                                                                                  PUMPING PLANT 8 STONE
                                                                                LAKE DRAINAGE FACILITIES
                                                                                     MOKELUMNE RIVER
                                         GEORGIANA SLOUGH
       "'	I'Aatioch

      (WoterCode Section 12220)
                                                                 OLD RIVER SIPHON


                                                   --I PUMPING


          The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is located at the con-
fluence of the south-flowing Sacramento River and the north-flowing
San Joaquin River which together drain the Central Valley of
California.  These two rivers turn westward at the Delta and unite
near the City of Pittsburg and discharge their flows by way of
Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco Bays into the Pacific Ocean.
Together they drain about 37 percent of the total land area of the
State of California (refer to inset map, Plate 1).  These rivers
contribute more than 47 percent of the full natural runoff of the
State which, without development, control, and utilization, would
find its way to the Pacific Ocean.
          The Delta encompasses about 738,000 acres and is inter-
laced with about 700 miles of waterways covering 50,000 acres.
These waterways meander among more than 50 intensively farmed
islands and tracts, many of which are below sea level.  About
415,000 acres of land in che Delta, commonly known as the Delta
lowlands, lie between elevations 5 feet above and 20 feet below
mean sea level, and are protected from floodwater and high tides
by manmade levees (refer to Plate 1).
          The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is one of the most
Important areas in California from the viewpoint of the conserva-
tion and development of two vital resources — water and fish.  In
1961, the State Departments of Water Resources and Pish and Game,
recognizing that the State Water Project would have a major impact
on the Delta environment for fish and wildlife, initiated the
Delta Pish and Wildlife Protection Study.  It was designed to
determine how to protect and, where feasible, enhance the fish and
wildlife resources of the Delta, in a manner compatible with
construction and operation of the State Water Project,  To date,
over $2.5 million has been invested in the program.  Of this, about
two-thirds was devoted to biological investigations and analyses
and about one-third to related engineering studies.  This report
brings together under one cover a summary of the more important
                              - 1 -

findings to date relative to water development, the Delta environ-
ment, and the effe-cts on fish and other aquatic life.
          The results of the studies that have been published to
date are contained in six annual reports and in two fish bulletins.
The annual reports contain a general account of the investigational
procedures and findings as the studies progressed.  The technical
aspects of the ecological studies are contained in Pish Bulletins
Nos. 133 and 136.  These and other references related to project
planning and fish and wildlife considerations are listed in the
bibliography to this report.  The inherent opportunities for re-
storing and enhancing Delta fish and wildlife, determined by that
study, were major considerations in selecting the Peripheral Canal
as a joint state-federal facility over all other alternative plans
for water transfer through the Delta.
Fishery Resources
          The Delta provides a unique and varied environment
essential for the maintenance of a large segment of California's
fishery resources and other aquatic life.  Its importance is illus-
trated by the fact that an estimated population of 4 to 8 million
adult striped bass is dependent on this environment during much of
the year.  About 60 percent of this population spawns in the
Delta channels each spring, with most of the remainder spawning in
the Sacramento River upstream from Hood.  Delta waters also supply
a vital nursery area for Juvenile striped bass.
          Other fishery resources dependent on the Delta include
spawning runs of up to 500,000 king salmon, 100,000 steelhead, and
2 million American shad.  These pass through the Delta annually on
their spawning migrations.  In addition, the Delta affords a habitat
for sturgeon, and large populations of resident game fishes, such
as catfish, black bass, and crappie.
          Delta waters also provide a vital source of aquatic food,
such as:  zooplankton, those microscopic animals in the water which
are eaten by fish larvae and fry; neomysis, a tiny shrimp which
                              - 2 -


sustains fish too large to maintain themselves on zooplankton until
they are large enough to eat smaller fish;  and benthos,  those
bottom-living animals such as clams, worms  and insects which support
catfish and sturgeon.  These food sources are necessary  to the
survival of the Delta fishery.
          It is estimated that Delta fish populations presently
support 3 million angler-days of sportfishing annually.   By 1980
this use is expected to increase to at least 5 million angler-days.
The value of such a sport fishery to the State's economy and the
well-being of its citizens is obvious.
          The ocean commercial salmon catch averages 8 million
pounds annually and is supported largely by runs migrating through
the Delta and spawning in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
systems.  This catch furnished a net annual income to the fishermen
of over $3 million.  It can only be maintained if adult  salmon
bound for upstream spawning areas and their progeny migrating down-
stream can pass unharmed through the Delta.
Water Development
          The Delta is the common point of collection and diversion
to achieve the major objective of the California Water Plan — that
of adjusting the areal imbalance of California's water resources
and needs.  Implementation of the State Water Project, expansion of
the Federal Central Valley Project, and continuation of individual
upstream water development projects in. the Central Valley, will
result in significant environmental changes in the Delta estuary.
Such changes include a reduction in uncontrolled winter and spring
flood runoff through the Delta and also changes in the Delta's
hydraulic and water quality characteristics.
          The 1966 transfer through Delta channels for the Federal
Central Valley Project was 1.6 million acre-feet.  Annual water
transfer across the Delta for export with the State Water Project
and new units of the Central Valley Project will increase
dramatically, to 4.6 million acre-feet by 1976, and later, to 7.8
million acre-feet.
                              - 3 -

Elements of Acceptable Solution
          Water development affecting the Delta must:
          (1) Provide for meeting the Delta water require-
     ments and environmental needs, including the protection
     of fish and other aquatic life; and
          (2) Be compatible with statewide water development
     as a whole so that present and future upstream and export
     water requirements can be met.
The Peripheral Canal Plan
          The primary purposes of the Peripheral Canal are to
convey surplus water from the Sacramento River to the state and
federal pumping plants in the southern Delta and, at the same time,
to serve and protect the Delta.  The Canal will be a state-federal
Joint-use facility.  It will be the Delta link in both the
California State Water Project and the Federal Central Valley
          The principal features of the Peripheral Canal are shown
on Plate 1.   The Canal will be 43 miles long, about 30 feet deep,
and over 400 feet wide at maximum water surface.  It will be an
unlined canal, hydraulically isolated from all of the Delta
channels except for the intake from the Sacramento River at Hood,
20 miles below Sacramento.  From Hood, it will be routed to the
west of Stockton, then will continue southwesterly across the
southern Delta.  The Canal will be siphoned under the three major
stream crossings — the Mokelumne, San Joaquin, and Old Rivers —
to allow for flood passage, fish migration, and navigation.  On
the west side of Old River, the Canal will divide into two
branches — the south branch terminating at the Bureau's Tracy
Pumping Plant intake canal, and the west branch terminating at the
State's Clifton Court Forebay to the Delta Pumping Plant of the
California Aqueduct.  The capacity at the headworks will be approxi-
mately 22,000 second-feet and the terminal capacity will be about
18,000 second-feet.

          Pish screening facilities will be Installed at the
Peripheral Canal headworks and provisions will be made to prevent
downstream migrant adult fish from being trapped in front of the
trashracks.  A fish screen bypass, which will return salvaged
fish to the Sacramento River, will be designed to minimize pre-
dation of the salvaged fish.
          Just below the diversion works and fish facilities, a
pumping plant will lift the water a maximum of 10 feet, and from
there it will flow by gravity to the state and federal pumps.
Water release structures will be located at slough and river
crossings along its route to supply fresh water for agriculture,
water quality control, and aquatic life.
          The Peripheral Canal Plan is the only plan available
that can distribute a freshwater supply to all parts of the interior
Delta, and at the same time provide a positive downstream flow
through Delta channels to San Francisco Bay.
November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria
          Both the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Department
of Water Resources plan to operate the joint-use Peripheral Canal,
in conjunction with the reservoirs of the Federal Central Valley
Project and the State Water Project, so as to meet the requirements
of the November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria which have
been negotiated with local Delta interests.  Water rights for the
State Water Project are conditioned on meeting these criteria
(Water Rights Board Decision D-1275).  Furthermore, it is probable
that the permits for the Central Valley Project will also be con-
ditioned to these criteria since the State Water Rights Board has
retained continuing Jurisdiction over salinity control in the
permits for that Project (Water Rights Board Decision D-990).
          Briefly, these criteria provide that salinity intrusion
will be prevented from exceeding 1,000 ppm chlorides in the
Sacramento River at Emmaton and in the San Joaquin River at Jersey
Point.  This is essentially equal to the maximum extent to which
salinity intrusion now occurs incidental to transporting and
                              - 5 -

protecting the quality of water pumped at the intakes to the Delta-
Mendota and Contra Costa Canals of the Federal Central Valley
Project.   There are relaxations in certain dry years that are
analogous to a deficiency in water deliveries taken by other project
beneficiaries in such years.  The criteria also provide for spring-
time flushing flows to limit salinity intrusion from exceeding
200 ppm of chlorides for at least a consecutive 10-day period dur-
ing April or May in all but dry or critical years.  Furthermore,
the criteria specify quality limits at specific locations for the
interior Delta channels that will assure Delta water users of
irrigation water of adequate quality.
          The location of the Delta water quality stations speci-
fied under these criteria is shown on Plate 1.  Under the provi-
sions of Section 12202 of the State Water Code, the Department of
Water Resources plans to provide for a firm high-quality water
supply to the western Delta agricultural areas through overland
facilities where salinity control releases do not now provide
acceptable water quality in the adjacent channels.
          Releases from the Peripheral Canal into Delta channels
to supply local needs and to control water quality and salinity
intrusion will play the dual role of protecting and enhancing the
Delta environment for fish and other aquatic life.  While the
criteria were negotiated with local agricultural interests, the
Department of Water Resources had protection of aquatic life as
one of the important objectives.
                              - 6 -

          Environmental conditions in the  Delta  can  be  improved
substantially for fish and other aquatic life.   The  present  adverse

conditions are due primarily to upstream water development in  the
San Joaquin River system and to the influence of the federal and
state export pumping plants, which now export over 2 million acre-

feet of water annually.  Under the present method of water transfer,

export pumping causes an unnatural or "reverse-flow" pattern in the

western and southern Delta channels.  Waste discharges,  the  effects

of which are made more acute by low river  flow and flow reversal
from pumping, cause dissolved oxygen sags  in the San Joaquin River
near Stockton.  In addition, a large percentage  of "home-stream"
water released from upstream water projects on the San  Joaquin
River and its tributaries is diverted directly to the export

pumping plants upon reaching the Delta.

          Collectively, tie foregoing conditions:

          1.  Interfere with the salmon migrating through
     the Delta.  A substantial portion of  the juvenile
     salmon migrating seaward are drawn toward the pumps.
     Louver screening facilities are provided to salvage
     fish but are not completely effective.  The process
     of loading, transporting, and releasing fish collected
     at the screens results in further mortality. The
     annual upstream spawning runs of the  San Joaquin River
     have decreased from approximately 50,000 fish to less
     than 3,000 salmon in 1961 and 1962.   This decline  was
     concurrent with the increased pumping and flow  reversals.
     With increased export of the state and federal  projects,
     the entire salmon run of the San Joaquin River  system
     will be lost if the reverse-flow condition  is not
     eliminated.  The cross-Delta transfer of water  also
     affects Sacramento River salmon adversely.

          2.  Draw large numbers of free-floating striped
     bass eggs and larvae through the louver screens into
     the export pumps.  The Department of  Pish and Game has
     estimated that 50 to 80 percent of all the  striped
     bass eggs spawned in the Delta could  eventually be
     lost by increased water export if they are  not  pro-
     tected.  Large numbers of American shad, catfish,  and
     other fishes are also lost through the pumps.
                              - 7 -

     3.   Decrease fish food  supply in the Delta channels
used for transfer.  The  high net velocity of the
water transfer channels together with the relatively
sterile water from the Sacramento River has decreased
the production of food organisms Important to the  sur-
vival of  most Delta fish.  The residence time of the
water is  too short and the dissolved minerals and  nutri-
ents too  low for these organisms to flourish.  Figure 1
illustrates  this condition by  showing the density  of
crustacean zooplankters with water of different quality
characteristics, through a wide range of net velocities.
The figure was constructed by  separating sloughs con-
taining San Joaquin River water from those containing
Sacramento River water, because the two waters contain
very different nutrient supplies, and the total dissolved
solids of San Joaquin River  water are always several
times higher than Sacramento River water.  Figure  2
illustrates  the effect of these relationships on the
relative  abundance of zooplankton in the Delta.  In the
Sacramento River and the north Delta water transfer
channels,  the combinations of  low-nutrient water and
high velocities resulted in  low zooplankton production.
Zooplankton populations were low in the San Joaquin
River south of Stockton, in  spite of the high nutrient
supplies  in the Stockton sewage outflow and return
agricultural drains in the San Joaquin Valley because •
net velocities were too high for zooplankton production.
Where this high-nutrient water entered the wide ship
channel below Stockton, and  the velocity decreased,
zooplankton populations flourished.
                                        .1 -.29  .3-.9
I plus
            0-029 .03-.O9  .I-.29  .3-.9 I plus 0-.029 .03-.09  .I-.29  .3-.9
      FIGURE 1.  Average numbers of crustacean zooplankters
      each season in various rivers in the Delta at different
      net water velocities.   Solid columns indicate plankters
      collected in the  San Joaquin River and the stippled
      columns the plankters collected in the Sacramento-
      Mokelumne Rivers.  Greater concentrations of crustaceans
      in the San Joaquin River reflect the higher levels of
      total dissolved solids in this stream.  Illustration
      taken from Figure 5, page 100, "Fish Bulletin 133,
      Ecological Studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
                           - 8 -

FIGURE 2.  Concentration of crustacean zooplankters in the Delta during 1963.
The area of each circle is proportional to the concentration of zooplankters
at each station with the largest circle equal to 120,000 per cubic meter.
Illustration taken from Figure 1, page 97, of "Fish Bulletin 133, Ecological
Studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary".

           Also, under  present  conditions,  the  salinity gradient

varies  greatly over a  long  distance each season as the outflow
to  the  Bay varies from low  in  summer to high in winter and back

to  low  the following  summer.   This causes  great variation in  the
abundance and occurrence of marine and freshwater benthic fish

food organisms such as Macoma  and Photis which cannot tolerate

extreme and sudden salinity changes.
           These and other problems associated  with fish  are
detailed in the annual reports and the fish bulletins of the  Delta

Fish and Wildlife Protection Study (refer  to bibliography).
                                - 9  -




          Of the numerous plans proposed for water transfer in the
Delta, the Peripheral Canal* was found by far the most beneficial
to the Delta's aquatic environment and fishlife.   With proper de-
sign and operation of this project, not only can  the fishery
resources of the Delta be protected, but they can be enhanced sub-
stantially.  This section explains how and why.
          The factors affecting fish in the Delta are involved and
complex.  Waterflow characteristics including quantity, quality,
velocity, and temperature, control many aspects of fish distribu-
tion, the food chain relationships, and other biological
          For this reason the Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection
Study has been under way since 1961.  It is a Joint program con-
ducted by the State's Departments of Fish and Game and Water
Resources.  The study is directed toward maintaining and improving
the Delta environment for fish and other aquatic  life.
          First, the most numerous and important  fish species of
the Delta were identified.  Second, the factors affecting their
environment that might be altered by any of the water plans were
identified.  Next, specific studies and field sampling procedures
were undertaken to determine the relationship of water development
to significant environmental factors through the  life cycle of
each species.
          The results, to date, of these and other studies are
presented in the annual reports of the Delta Fish and Wildlife
Protection Study, and in the Fish Bulletins by the State Department
of Fish and Game (refer to bibliography).
          These studies show that, properly operated, the Peripheral
Canal will:
          1.  Maintain a long  (about 50 miles) gradual salinity
     gradient for migratory game fish.  Such a gradient is
     necessary to permit the physiological changes required
*A summary of the fishery basis for selection of the Peripheral
 Canal Plan is contained in the appendix to this report.
                              - 11 -

when a fish migrates between salt water and fresh water
and to provide a suitable environment for their important
food sources.

     2.  Prevent flow reversal in all (50 to 100 miles) of
the main fish migration channels and provide a positive
downstream net flow in almost all Delta channels (refer to
Figure 3).  This will enable anadromous fish (mainly salmon)
to reach their spawning grounds without loss or undue delays
and prevent the buildup of salts and pollutants.

     3.  Reduce to less than 10 percent the loss of striped
bass eggs and larvae into the export pumps.  It is im-
portant to realize that louver screening will not salvage
these eggs and larvae from the diversions.  Without the
Peripheral Canal the present loss of from 15 to 30 percent
would increase to an estimated 50 to 80 percent at the
southern Delta export pumps.  Loss of other fishes now
occurring via the pumps would be eliminated.

     4.  Provide an environment conducive to good production
of zooplankton — microscopic animals of great importance as
a source of food for the young of most Delta fishes.  Figure
4 indicates a potential 1.5 to 2-fold increase in June when
they are most needed, with the largest increases occurring
in the northern and western Delta channels.

     5.  Provide an environment more conducive to good
populations of benthic animals which provide an important
source of food for catfish and sturgeon.  Figure 5 indicates
a significant reduction of shifting sand in channel bottoms
mostly in the northern Delta below the Peripheral Canal

     6.  Retain tidal action throughout Delta channels.
This is needed:

         a.  For the survival of Neomysis and Corophium —
     two of the most important fish foods in the Delta;

         b.  For the survival of striped bass eggs which
     would otherwise settle to the bottom, suffocate, and
     die; and

         c.  To maintain good water quality conditions,
     particularly high dissolved oxygen levels.

     7.  Provide sufficient and well-dispersed areas with
TDS levels below 180 ppm during the late spring for striped
bass spawning.

     8.  In conjunction with appropriate waste discharge
controls, keep dissolved oxygen levels at a satisfactory
                           12 -

                                     Figure 3.  Channels where  present and antici-
                                     pated increases in flow reversal will be
                                     eliminated after operation of the Peripheral
                                     Canal.  Such flow reversals interfere with
                                     both the upstream spawning migration of adult
                                     salmon and the downstream  migration of young
                                     salmon.  Illustration  adapted from Figure 7,
                                     page 22a, "Delta Fish  and  Wildlife Protection
                                     Study, Report No. 3, June  1964".

   (JUNE 1963)       /~f '
                                     Figure 4.  Relative size  of  zooplankton popu-
                                     lations in June 1962 and  predicted increase
                                     in  populations in June  1990  with the
                                     Peripheral Canal in operation.   Illustration
                                     adapted from Figure 8,  page  24a, "Delta Fish
                                     and Wildlife Protection Study,  Report No. 3,
                                     June 1964".


                                    Figure 5.   Location of channels where shift-
                                    ing  sand substrate, observed  in 1963 and
                                    1964,  limited the production  of zoobenthos;
                                    and  areas  where present and anticipated
                                    shifting sand substrate will  be eliminated
                                    after  the  operation of the Peripheral Canal.
                                    Illustration adapted from Figure 9, page 26a,
                                    "Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection Study,
                                    Report No. 3, June 1964".

     level.   This is necessary to protect the opossum shrimp
     (Neomysis) and fish populations, particularly in the
     late summer and fall.
          9.  Help regulate the intermixing of Sacramento,
     Mokelumne, and San Joaquin River water during the peak of
     the salmon run to aid the homing ability of these fish.
          The restoration and enhancement of the fishery resources
dependent on the Delta are considered in more detail in three parts:
(1) benefits from statewide water development and salinity control,
(2) automatic benefits from the Peripheral Canal, and (3) benefits
produced by proper operation of the Peripheral Canal.
Benefits from Statewide Water Development and Salinity Control
          The salinity gradient from fresh to sea water is usually
about 50 miles long, extending from the western edge of the Delta
to mid-San Francisco Bay.  The gradient shortens when the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers are in flood stage, and lengthens as outflow
decreases.  The reduction of winter and spring floodflow through
the Delta that will accompany statewide water development, to-gether
with the controlled releases from the Federal Central Valley Project
and State Water Project reservoirs for salinity control to guarantee
the November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria, will cause the
salinity gradient to become more stable and somewhat longer on the
average with the upper end being controlled to approximately its
present summer location for longer periods of time.  This will
          1.  Marine and freshwater fishes to establish more
     stable populations in the area where the gradient changes
     from brackish to fresh water;
          2.  Neomysis populations to become more stable in the
     western Delta.  These animals are important food sources
     to fish and prefer water below 4,000 ppm chlorides; and
          3.  Benthic species that favor a more saline
     environment to establish more stable populations in the
     estuary between the western Delta and San Pablo Bay.

Automatic Benefits from the Peripheral Canal
          By changing the point of diversion from the southern
Delta to the Sacramento River with the Peripheral Canal, the
present impact of water transfer and pumping from the Delta will
be eliminated, thus automatically restoring many of the natural
hydrologlc characteristics.
          This improvement will:  (1) eliminate the flow reversal
which now occurs in over 50 miles of channel in the lower San
Joaquin River and southern Delta; (2) allow more home-stream
water released from upstream reservoirs on the San Joaquin River
tributaries to pass through the Delta for migrating fish; (3) re-
duce net flow across the Delta with resultant moderate increases
in TDS and nutrient concentrations.  The foregoing improvements
will benefit salmon, striped bass, resident warmwater fish, and
the aquatic fish food organisms they depend on.
          Salmon will benefit in three ways:
          1.  By removing one of the major barriers (reverse
     flow) to unrestricted passage of salmon bound for spawn-
     ing areas in upstream tributaries.  Annual rehabilitation
     goals of 55,000 spawners for the Tuolumne, 28,000 for the
     Merced, 19,000 for the Stanislaus, and 10,000 for the
     Mokelumne Rivers have been established;
          2.  By maintaining a substantial portion of San
     Joaquin River home-stream water in major migration
     channels to help guide salmon to their spawning
     grounds; and
          3-  By permitting juvenile salmon to migrate seaward
     through the Delta following natural migration routes
     without being drawn toward the pumps, salvaged, and
     transported by tank truck.
          These improvements are needed to restore the once-
abundant salmon runs of the San Joaquin River system.  Large
expenditures ($2 million on the Merced River alone), to obtain
flows and rehabilitate spawning areas for salmon are planned and
are being made on the assumption that the Peripheral Canal will be
completed at an early date.  Benefits from such expenditures can-
not be achieved if the spawners cannot successfully pass through
the Delta and reach their spawning grounds.
                              - 15 -

          Striped Bass will benefit in two ways:

          1.  By reducing the loss of eggs and larvae at the
     export pumps.   Diverting water at Hood on the Sacramento
     River will automatically reduce the proportion of eggs
     and larvae subject to the export pumps.

          2.  By eliminating mortality from handling and
     transporting salvaged fish.  The system planned for the
     Peripheral Canal will return salvaged fish directly to
     the river and will be designed to minimize mortality
     from handling and from predatlon.  A total of 41 million
     Juvenile striped bass was hauled from the Tracy louver
     screen from June to August 1965 when pumping amounted to
     700,000 acre-feet.  Future pumping rates at this time of
     year will increase twofold.

          Resident Warmwater Fish (such as catfish, largemouth

bass, and crappie) will benefit from the reduced net flow in the

main transfer channels thereby restoring quiet-water areas favored

by these species.  The additional angling opportunity created will

help meet the expected increase of 65 percent in statewide angler

use of warmwater fish by 1980 (4-1/2 million angler-days in 1963

to between 7-1/4 and 10 million angler-days in 1980).

          Aquatic Fish Food will be benefited in two ways:

          1.  Improved conditions for benthic animals, such as
     Corophlum and tendipedids, are expected to occur as a re-
     sult of reduced scour and shifting sand in about 65 miles
     of channel bottoms, that would otherwise occur from the
     high net flows in the water transfer channels of the north

          2.  Improved conditions for zooplankton and opossum
     shrimp populations will result from longer residence time
     of the water and moderate increases in the dissolved miner-
     als and nutrients in interior Delta channels; provided,
     adequate water quality is maintained through waste discharge

Benefits from Proper Operation of the Peripheral Canal

          Additional benefits to fishlife will accrue if certain

operating practices for the Peripheral Canal are observed.  Final

operational criteria for the Canal have not yet been set.  Co-

operative studies are underway by the Department of Fish and Game

and the Department of Water Resources with the goal of establishing
                              - 16 -

the best distribution and magnitude of releases  from the  Canal
to protect and, where feasible,  to enhance  the various  resources
of the Delta in relation to the  overall capability of the project.
This section describes some of the factors  involved, the  general
concept of operation, and opportunities to  benefit fish and other
aquatic life through proper operation.
          Some Factors Affected  by Canal Operation.  Waters produc-
tive of fish are in a state of biological balance among the fish,
other aquatic organisms, and physical and chemical factors of the
environment.  This natural balance, although not fragile, can be
damaged by factors introduced by the users  of water or  by faulty
practices of water management.  Effects, either  favorable or
unfavorable, are reflected throughout the ecological chain.  As the
human population increases and our demands  for available  waters
rise, the fishery manager and the water manager  are faced with the
problem of deciding how many times and for  what  purposes  Delta
waters may be used without losing the desired effects.
          Waterflow characteristics, including quantity,  quality,
and velocity, control many aspects of fish  distribution,  the food
chain relationships, and other biological relationships.   As such
they are not entirely separable  from each other.  Conversely, any
one factors alone cannot guarantee a suitable environment for fish
and other aquatic life.
          For example, present evidence indicates that  striped
bass require water below 180 ppm TDS at temperatures between 60
and 65°F during the spawning period.  Good  production of  zooplankton,
the principal food for newly hatched bass larvae and fry, results
in waters with low net velocities that are  relatively rich in
nutrients and with mineral concentrations between 200 and 700 ppm
TDS.  It is the intention of the Department of Fish and Game and
the Department of Water Resources to establish operating  criteria
for the Peripheral Canal that will balance  the need for striped
bass spawning areas and fish-food-producing areas during  the
spawning period, and then gradually increase the critical food-
producing areas after spawning is completed.
                               - 17 -

          Work to date indicates that the Peripheral Canal and the
criteria contained in the November 19, 1965 water entitlement agree-
ment permit substantial operational flexibility to accomplish most
and perhaps all environmental needs of fish and other aquatic life.
This flexibility includes provision for positive downstream flow,
limited net velocity, lower dissolved mineral concentrations at
striped bass spawning time, and higher (over present conditions),
but not too high, concentrations of dissolved minerals and nutrients
in summer and fall to benefit fish food organisms.
          It is important to maintain this operational flexibility.
Each hydrologic year is different and the exact magnitude and timing
to meet the desired environmental conditions are different each year.
Studies of factors controlling dissolved oxygen, striped bass spawn-
ing, food sources for sustaining young bass, needed to establish
operational criteria are incomplete.  Prematurely setting additional
water quality criteria could restrict a meaningful operating agree-
ment between the Department of Pish and Game and the project
operators, and possibly negate the fishery protection and- enhance-
ment potential of the project.  Completion of the current studies
followed by a meaningful period of trial operation are necessary to
assure the desired results.
          Concept of Canal Operation.  In general, the concept for
operation Is to distribute the total amount of water needed for
Delta agricultural use and controlled freshwater outflow for
salinity control, plus any uncontrolled surplus flows not needed
for export, In the best way to achieve a balance among all of the
beneficial uses of Delta waters.
          For example, during the winter months when surplus flows
in the Sacramento River are normally high and requirements for
zooplankton as fish food are small, leaching of salts from agricul-
tural lands constitutes the primary use of water and would govern
the operation of the Peripheral Canal.  Even though water is not
required for consumptive use, good quality (less than 100 ppm TDS)
Sacramento River water would be conveyed through the Canal to up-
grade the quality of San Joaquin River water.  The blended water
could be expected to range between 100 and 250 ppm TDS in most
southern and eastern Delta channels under normal conditions.
                               - 18 -

          During the early spring months striped bass migrate from
the ocean and bay into fresh water to spawn.   By conveying a portion
of the Sacramento River water in the Canal that  is  required to meet
irrigation and salinity control requirements,  water could be
blended to provide less than 350 ppm TDS in Old, Middle,  and
Mokelumne Rivers to encourage striped bass to  move  into these areas.
Releases into the main San Joaquin River would be kept to a minimum
to encourage good production of zooplankton.
          During about a 30-day period In midspring when the water
reaches the spawning temperature between 60 and 65°P, the Peripheral
Canal would be operated for striped bass spawning in the Delta by
providing sufficient areas of water with less  than  180 ppm TDS.  A
balance would be maintained between spawning areas  and fish food-
producing areas.
          In all but dry years, diversions for export would be kept
at a minimum for a 30-day period during the peak of striped bass
spawning in the Sacramento River.  This would  allow many of the
free-floating eggs and larvae to drift past the Peripheral Canal in-
take into the central and western Delta and would enable them to
hatch and grow away from the influence of the  export facilities.  If
the historical spawning pattern prevails under future conditions, a
larger proportion of striped bass would spawn  below the Peripheral
Canal intake in dry years; hence fewer eggs and larvae would be
subjected to the pumps.
          Beginning in summer as soon as spawning is completed,
canal releases would be adjusted to increase residence time and
concentration of dissolved minerals and nutrients in Delta  channels
to Improve the supply of fish food for the newly hatched  bass .
          Beginning in mid-July, young striped bass usually shift
from zooplankton to Neomysis for food.  Because of this shift in
food preference, a large portion of Sacramento River water  needed
to meet the high consumptive use and salinity outflow requirements
in the eastern and southern Delta could be released from  the
Peripheral Canal without harm to the fishery.   These large  releases
would assure positive downstream flows in most Delta channels to
prevent the buildup of salts and pollutants, and would provide  irri-
gators with the best possible quality of water throughout the
remainder of the summer.

                              - 19 -

          As the season moves into fall and the king salmon spawn-

ing migration begins,  release of Sacramento River water from the

Canal would be reduced, consistent with maintenance of adequate

levels of dissolved oxygen,  to assure a high proportion of "home-
stream" water in the migration channels.  This would aid salmon  in

returning to their spawning stream of origin.  It would minimize the
attraction of Sacramento River salmon into the southern Delta and
dead-end sloughs where releases are made.
          Operating Advantages.  Operating criteria cannot be
defined until studies  are completed.   But, a summary of the

anticipated advantages to fishlife from proper operation of the

Peripheral Canal, as now envisioned,  is presented below:

          1.  Export pumping could be reduced during the
     striped bass spawning period to  minimize losses of
     striped bass eggs and larvae at  the Peripheral Canal
     intake.  Although a much smaller (than present) per-
     centage of eggs and larvae will  be subjected to the
     influence of export pumping, a substantial number of
     striped bass will continue to spawn in the Sacramento
     River system above the  canal intake.

          2.  Good quality water can  be released from facili-
     ties along the Peripheral Canal  to improve dead-end sloughs
     and into other Delta channels (such as the San Joaquin
     River near Stockton) where low dissolved oxygen levels
     occur that are detrimental to aquatic life.

          3.  Adjustment of flows and water quality through
     releases from the Canal could result  in levels of total
     dissolved solids  (TDS)  low enough to  permit striped bass
     to spawn in areas presently unsuitable for these fish in
     addition to maintaining most of  the present key spawning
     areas.  It is considered good management for spawning to
     take place over a wide  area rather than in a limited area
     where an unexpected local detrimental condition could
     eliminate a substantial amount of reproduction.

          4.  Proper control of flows through releases from the
     Peripheral Canal  could  also result in water quality condi-
     tions more productive of fish food organisms at a time
     when they are needed most.

          5.  Flow releases, together with the elimination of
     flow reversal described earlier, will assure positive
     downstream flows  in most all Delta channels to prevent
     the buildup of salts and pollutants and to aid fish
                                - 20 -



          In its preliminary report of August 27,  1965,  the  U.  S.
Fish and Wildlife Service presented its own  analysis of  future  Delta

environment and its effect on fishery resources  with and without the

Peripheral Canal, proposed as a federal-state joint-use  project.*

Substantial fisheries enhancement attributable to  the  Peripheral

Canal is indicated.  The report states in part:

          "The Peripheral Canal Plan is the  only proposal we
     are aware of that would provide water to state and
     federal pumps near Tracy and not have serious detrimental
     effects on the fish and wildlife of the Delta and the
     Sacramento-San Joaquin River systems.  In fact, consider-
     able fish enhancement possibilities are inherent  in the
     Peripheral Canal concept through improvement  of Delta
     habitat.  In addition, a significant fishery  value  would
     result within the Canal itself.


          "Analyses of project effects upon  the  fish resources
     have been based on the provision of adequate  fish screen
     and bypass facilities at the Hood intake and  the  instal-
     lation of facilities at canal outlets that  would  keep
     anadromous fish from entering the Canal. If  the  releases
     from the outlets result in dead-ending  of migrating
     anadromous fish in the Canal, it may be necessary to cut
     off water releases into dead-end sloughs during the
     migration period.


          "The proposed operational schedule of  the Peripheral
     Canal would include releases into various dead-end
     sloughs and river systems.  These releases  would  elimi-
     nate the Delta flow-reversal problems.   In  addition,
     removal of the present pollution block  in the San
     Joaquin River below Stockton would contribute greatly
     toward saving the remnant San Joaquin River salmon
     runs.  The overall long-term effect of  the  proposed
     releases will be expected to draw migratory fish  species
 Report of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service included as an
 appendix to the Bureau of Reclamation's Preliminary Feasibility
 Report on the Peripheral Canal Unit of the Federal Central
 Valley Project, dated April 1966.

                             - 21 -

     as well as resident species back into the San Joaquin
     system.  This is a desirable aspect of the Peripheral
     Canal, provided that adequate spawning conditions and
     flows are available in the San Joaquin River and


          "All analyses of fish and wildlife effects were
     based on a minimum salinity repulsion outflow of 1,500
     second-feet through the Delta into San Francisco Bay.
     If this minimum is not maintained, a reevaluation will
     be necessary.  However, we believe the actual optimum
     outflow for fish and wildlife should be determined
     after the project is in operation through an extended
     program of monitoring water quality."

          It should be noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service analysis of fishery enhancement is based on flow release

schedules and minimum salinity control outflow that were contem-
plated prior to the November 19, 1965 Delta Water Quality Criteria.

Operation under these later criteria will produce water quality
at least equal to  and probably better than that contemplated at
the time the estimates were made.
          Throughout its preliminary feasibility report of
April 1966, the Bureau of Reclamation sets forth both fishery

restoration and enhancement and water quality control as being
among the purposes of the Peripheral Canal.  The Bureau also

indicates its intention that the Canal be operated for the benefit
of fish.  This is  evidenced by such statements as:

     "...releases  (from the Canal) would achieve water
     quality control not only for the fishery but for the
     agricultural  lands of the Delta.";

     "...the releases (into various dead-end sloughs) would
     increase the  dissolved oxygen content needed by the fish.";

     "Regulated releases from the Peripheral Canal would improve
     conditions in the Delta for increased production of
     American shad."; and

     "...water released from the Canal into dead-end sloughs,
     channels, and streams would provide a control on the
     quality of water and maintain a positive downstream flow
     for the removal of the pollution block and future rehabi-
     litation of the upper San Joaquin River system."
                             - 22 -

          The statewide and national significance  of  the  fish  and
aquatic resources of the Delta is apparent  from the  foregoing
review.  Both the California Department of  Fish and  Game  and the
U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have  enthusiastically
endorsed the Peripheral Canal Plan.  At the same time,  however,
they identified several areas requiring further investigation.
          The Departments of Fish and Game  and Water  Resources are
conducting additional biological and engineering studies  to
develop design and operating criteria for the project.  Much of the
additional work, however, because of its technical nature,  its
bearing on design, construction and operation, and the  joint nature
of the project, warrants participation by the appropriate agencies
of both the State and Federal Governments.
          For example, a decision must be made regarding  the type
of fish screening device at the Peripheral  Canal intake.   Each
year millions of striped bass and shad fry  will be drawn  to the
Canal.  Tests over the past several years have clearly  demonstrated
that louver screening devices such as those at the federal and
state pumping plants in the southern Delta will only be partially
effective in saving the small fish reaching the Canal.  A new
screening concept has been developed and is being  investigated
from both the biological and engineering viewpoints.   If  this
screening concept proves to be effective and feasible,  it should
permit some relaxation and greater flexibility in the pumping
restrictions now planned during the peak occurrence of these small
          It will be necessary to continue monitoring certain
biological aspects of the Delta environment during the  interim
period and following construction of the Canal, so that when the
Peripheral Canal does go into operation, a base will have been
established from which to evaluate the effectiveness of project
facilities and water releases.

          More precise information is being obtained concerning the
factors controlling the time and location of striped bass spawning
and the survival of young.  This is necessary to realize the
maximum potential for protecting and enhancing the population
through Peripheral Canal operation.
          The origin and mode of water delivery into the Delta
during the upstream migration of salmon in the fall must be
evaluated in conjunction with canal operation.  The release of
Sacramento River water with a disproportionately small quantity of
San Joaquin River water would likely delay or prevent these fish
from finding and ascending their "home-stream".  Solutions under
consideration are:  (1) modification of canal facilities to pass
fish; (2) adjustment of canal operation; and (3) provision for
exchange of Sacramento River water with San Joaquin water.
          Studies are now under way to define the mechanisms by
which hydraulic conditions, water chemistry, algae growth, and
other factors control dissolved oxygen.  Study results will be used
to plan an effective program to prevent dissolved oxygen problems
and their adverse effects on fish and other aquatic life.  Part of
the management of the Delta environment will involve scheduling
the timing and quantities of releases from the Peripheral Canal to
aid in preventing adverse oxygen conditions, and part will involve
control of waste discharges.

                             SUMMARY OF
           In January 1965,  the federal-state  Interagency  Delta
 Committee recommended the Peripheral Canal concept as  the best

 alternative for adaptation to the full range  of water-associated

 needs in the Delta,  while meeting the water transfer requirements

 of the state and federal water projects.   This recommendation was

 made after more than three years of careful study of Delta

 problems and the numerous alternative plans which were grouped

 into four basic concepts:

           1.  Hydraulic Barriers - The transfer of water  for
      export through existing Delta channels,  accompanied  by
      large releases of water from upstream storage reservoirs
      for salinity control;

           2.  Physical Barriers - The transfer of water for
      export through existing Delta channels,  with salinity
      control accomplished by a single barrier (low-level  dam)
      in the bay system west of the Delta;

           3.  Waterway Control Plans - The transfer of water
      for export through hydraulically controlled and modi-
      fied Delta channels with the present  level of salinity
      control accomplished by a continuation of moderate
      releases of water from upstream storage  reservoirs.
      Water supply in the western Delta would  be provided
      through overland facilities; and

           4.  Peripheral Canal Plans - The transfer of water
      for export through a new, hydraulically  isolated  channel
      around the Delta, with the present level of salinity
      control accomplished by a continuation of moderate
      releases from upstream storage reservoirs.  Irrigation
      water of adequate quality would be provided for the  Delta
      by a combination of controlled freshwater releases from
      the Canal and overland water facilities  in the western
                              - 25 -

          The effect that each alternative plan would have on

factors related to fish and other aquatic life is reported in the

Third Annual Report of the Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection

Study, dated June 1964.  A summary of the effects of the four

water plans on six important environmental factors, in relation to

pr'esent conditions, is shown in Table 1 of that report.  This

table is included here as Table A-l for convenient reference.  The

conclusions reached were supported and the Peripheral Canal Plan

was endorsed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

          In providing an overall rating for each plan, the

Department of Fish and Game concluded that:

          1.  The Hydraulic Barrier Plan would only increase
     existing environmental deficiencies and would eliminate
     the San Joaquin and Mokelumne River anadromous fish
     runs and would likely reduce the striped bass populations
     that now spawn in the Sacramento River system.

          2.  The Physical Barrier Plan is the least desirable
     plan and would be particularly detrimental to the two
     most important fish species — both of which are migratory —
     the salmon and the striped bass.  This plan would virtually
     eliminate the long, gradual salinity gradient in all Delta
     channels and would cause more frequent and more extensive
     flow reversals in the San Joaquin River and south Delta
     channels.  It would probably result in almost total loss
     of the striped bass due to the egg settlement and suffoca-
     tion and complete loss of the San Joaquin River salmon run
     without chance of rejuvenation.

          3.  The Delta Waterway Control Plan would, under proper
     operation,do no harm to the Sacramento River anadromous
     fish runs and could solve the flow-reversal problem facing
     today's San Joaquin and Mokelumne River runs.  It would
     probably further restrict the movement of these fishes
     into the south Delta and would damage catfish popula-
     tions there through a reduction of their food supply.

          4.  The Peripheral Canal Plan is the most desirable
     plan and, in fact, the only plan that can fully protect the
     fish and aquatic resource of the Delta and also provide
     opportunities for enhancement.  Properly operated, this
     plan can maintain a long, gradual salinity gradient, pro-
     vide a positive net flow toward the sea in most all Delta
     channels, minimize the loss of striped bass eggs and
     larvae, improve environmental conditions necessary for
     high population of fish food organisms, and maintain
     important tidal action.
                              -  26  -

          5.  In summary,  based on intensive biological studies,
     it was concluded that the Peripheral Canal Plan is the most
     desirable plan for Delta Water Facilities, and it  is the
     only plan that will fully protect and offer enhancement
     opportunities for fish and wildlife.  "We recommend its
     construction at the earliest possible date."(emphasis
          In November 1964, prior to completion of the  Committee's
final report, the Peripheral Canal received widespread  support by
federal, state, and local interests at a public hearing before the
California Water Commission.  Local interests commenting to the
Commission included agricultural groups, water districts, county
and city levels of government, sportsmen's groups, and  the
commercial fishing industry.  In his comments to the Committee,
Chairman Ralph Brody said:
          "An interesting aspect of the hearing was that for
     the first time in our memory, large groups of fish and
     wildlife and recreation interests supported almost
     without qualification a proposed water project.  In
     fact, the entire San Francisco Bay fishing fleet
     declared a holiday so that the skippers and their
     families could be present for the hearing."
          Subsequently, the Department of Water Resources and the
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation selected the Peripheral Canal Plan
for development as a joint state-federal Delta water facility as
the Delta link in the California State Water Project and the
Federal Central Valley Project.
          The Department of Water Resources has authority to con-
struct the Canal alone or by joint venture under the 1959
California Water Resources Development Bond Act.  The Bureau
of Reclamation is completing a feasibility report on the Peripheral
Canal as an additional unit of the Central Valley Project, but
needs authorization from Congress to proceed as a joint project
with the State.
          Since selection and adoption of the Peripheral Canal,
work of the Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection Study has been
directed toward developing design and operating criteria for the
Canal that will assure protection and, where feasible,  enhance-
ment of the Delta environment for fish and other aquatic life.



d d
ft f — I
4> PH

00 00
H 8 ij
£ *^ £3
HO m H
K 00 .p PL,
P § •! H
O * o
^ >j as ft
K K -P +3
2* M , 	 j q
o oo So
X Pn
rO Pn

§0 15
E?^ " — 1 PH
00 tH w
3 K M 41
«l Sfc
< K °
Z5 O
£ ,
g<5 ft
O 4)

Gc3 t~t £^
d pg
pc.( rt
O EH y gj
£/} H rH pj
EH JjjEj 3
in fi ^

3 ^
fJL( |-Ij
^ ^
t-3 P*"! fll
00 0 S

•H >y
a d

0 H
to, <;


4) O
i *> fV
§ w
•H !>>
S cd
**"* 3*
w <


CO ft
•d >>
H g
0 H

CO ft














4) CO CO
05 H -rl -P •
OJ ft 4) (0 CO


4) ai q q OH
>> ft>qo S4> -p
4)^3 O-H3-P HB CO •

ts9- -H o q s! an
BVD 3 ^ B ,B c>

uo« q-p-ppi4> -HH
-P B co O H O O -P fl5 o5
CO O Oa54)Oft B-P ty .M
OOI-P <»H OH4) o!
HOaJ -H..4)COHQ 3o!
Pft q^isft 4) o*-p
bOTftt) bfl 4)?OH t)H
b04>pi -nqqxio XH T(4)






-P ' B -P
• a3 H 'd q H
4)^3 PHP -PO,q CO
,Q O4) HO OW4)
t8- d Q • 4>q BHW
B VD r.O CO P -rl ft • 4) O
co • 4) d q B ft
-PB S • S'HH 33
coO Bcoco COPH4)4) .M Pi
wti-H q-HHH qn p -POI
O4J-P THD4) 'H4)D d4)B
Hoed ftqq qn* pdnw
Pft ft41BB ftBndoO O^H-JbpB
WftO Pn03OO PnoisO  ? B
00 ft HHO O O •rjoS
4) "ep- -P H q q H -P
4)S> bOO-P-p £ 3 -HH
-P K WHcoo D ^> W Q



• vH
-P &
0) H
O , H4)a3 a34>OH4> BH
O • CO P CO B 4) P 4)
4) C0,nft • • 3 • -HB
-p O O O rr*"\ P'I • q cd P^i • cfi
^H q ( — 1 OB co O ,\ CO 4) ,^i
o -p qcSH-riO'qH -PO
cObDft -rl• P <*H -P ^5- O>H

eg • CO 0) B
B ft CO O • -P to
a) o a> d •>-< Orf COH -p
0)-P C0>4) -PC041 -P-P Q4> CO-
COH etl4)M pcora OH Sq Qco
ft4)ft4)ftO HO «J4) C SH
|>3>CH>H co-p -H^l BB
4) • 03 i-l >i O • -P • • O -HB
p^* rQ fV ti f^J flj OB T^J ^T t^ • ^5 flj
^-tHqHftq4>4) co qa3 4)rq
qoa O-HP 034J- qoSH 4)+' -PO
• -H -H bfl -rH ? HJ CO 4) Oj "6^- -rH 4) H H d
-P>-POl-rH"S>(W alft-rH^) ft4)§ ^Q &-5
HuMaJftftO «H-pi O>n O 4)H
4)HCl5OPPHq tHOCOLTN O-rH^3 X'rl 134)
QCHftf-^rr^Qq-iTH O-P41H PnKU WO 
PH  O  4)
    H A
<  Pn -P
                                      O  ft
                                      •P -P
                                                 O  ft

                                                 q  >
                                               28  -
CO  ft

o ^
•H  o q
-p -H o
•H A -H



California Department of Fish and Game and California Department
     of Water Resources.  "Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection
     Study" Annual Report (1961-62)  No.  1.  June 1962.

California Department of Fish and Game and California Department
     of Water Resources.  "Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection
     Study" Annual Report (1962-63)  No.  2.  June 1963.

California Department of Fish and Game and California Department
     of Water Resources.  "Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection
     Study" Annual Report (1963-64)  No.  3-  June 1964.

California Department of Fish and Game and California Department
     of Water Resources.  "Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection
     Study" Annual Report (1964-65)  No.  4.  June 1965.

California Department of Fish and Game and California Department
     of Water Resources.  "Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection
     Study" Annual Report (1965-66)  No.  5.  June 1966.

California Department of Fish and Game and California Department
     of Water Resources.  "Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection
     Study" Annual Report (1966-67)  No.  6.  June 196?.

California Department of Fish and Game.   "Ecological Studies of
     the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary".  Fish Bulletin 133,
     Part I.  1966.

California Department of Fish and Game.   "Ecological Studies of
     the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary".  Fish Bulletin 136,
     Part II.  1966.

California Department of Fish and Game.   "California Fish and
     Wildlife Plan".  Volume I, Summary.  January 1966.

California Department of Fish and Game,  California Department
     of Water Resources, and Central Valley Regional Water
     Pollution Control Board.  "Problems of the Lower San Joaquin
     River Influencing the 1963 Salmon Run".  January 1964.

California Department of Fish and Game,  California Department
     of Water Resources, and Central Valley Regional Water
     Pollution Control Board.  "Report on the 1964 Salmon
     Migration Study in the San Joaquin River".  1964.

California State Water Resources Board.   "Water Resources of
     California".  Bulletin No. 1.  1951.

California Department of Water Resources.  "Delta Water
     Facilities".  Bulletin No. 76.   December I960.
                           - 29 -

                        BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

California Department of Water Resources.   "The Peripheral Canal
     of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta".   December 1966.

Interagency Delta Committee.  "Plan of Development, Sacramento-
     San Joaquin Delta".  January 1965-

Interagency Delta Committee.  "Plan of Development, Sacramento-
     San Joaquin Delta".  Appendix, Review  Comments and State-
     ments.  March 1965-

U. S. Bureau of Reclamation.  "A Report  on  the Feasibility of
     Water Transfer in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Peripheral
     Canal Unit, Central Valley Project, California".   April
     1966.  (Proposed Report of Regional Director, Subject to

The Resources Agency of California.  "Review of the Proposed
     Report of U. S. Department of the Interior,  Bureau of
     Reclamation, Peripheral Canal Unit, Central  Valley Project,
     California".  July 1966.

Sacramento River and Delta Water Association, California Department
     of Water Resources, San Joaquin Water Rights Committee, U. S.
     Bureau of Reclamation.  "Delta Water Quality Criteria".
     November 19, 1965.

State of California Water Rights Board.   "Decision D-990;
     Sources, Sacramento River, Rock Slough, Old  River, and
     Channels of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta".  February

State of California Water Rights Board.   "Decision D-1275;
     Sources, Feather River, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
     Lindsey Slough, Italian Slough, and San Luis Creek".
     May 1967.




Alexander, William A	           1,  82

Bodovitz, Joseph E	7,  10,  11,  12

Brooks, Sidney	              18

Chen, Dr. Carl W	             104

Cogswell, Dr. Howard L	              58

DeVito, John E	              97

Eldh, Hanford	             119

Gustafson, Dr. Joel F	              43

Harvey, Dr. H. Thomas	              32

Harville, Dr. John P	              19

Mailliard, Congressman William S	               5

McCarty, James C., Jr	    1, 4,  57,  81

Ogilvie, Arthur L	         77, 107

Roche, Martin	i	              28

Royce, Edwin B	              60

Tarp, Dr. Fred H	              72

Terzich, Irving M	               2

Waldie, Congressman Jerome R	              82

Willeke, Dr. Gene E	              52

Wright, Trevenen A	              13

Zars, Peter H	              68


Mr. James C. McCarty, Jr.
Mr. Irving M.  Terzich
Mr. William A. Alexander
Congressman William S. Mailliard
Congressman Jerome R. Waldie
Mr. Peter H. Zars
Mr. Edwin B. Royce
Dr. Howard L. Cogswell
Dr. Joel F. Gustafson
Dr. H. Thomas Harvey
Deputy Director, Pacific Southwest Reg.
Federal Water Pollution Control
   Administration, USDI
760 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94102

Public Information & Education
   Office Director
Pacific Southwest Region
Federal Water Pollution Control
   Administration, USDI
760 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94102

Member, State Water Resources Control Bd.
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Sixth District, County of San Francisco
House of Representatives
Washington, DC  20515

Fourteenth District, Contra Costa
   County, California
House of Representatives
Washington, DC  20515

Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
1320 St. Charles Street
Alameda, CA  94501

Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
842 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA  94550

Dept. of Biological Science
Calif. State College, Hayward
25800 Hillary Street
Hayward, CA  94542

Ecology and Systematics
San Francisco State College
1600 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94132

Ecologist, Biological Sciences Dept.
San Jose State College
San Jose, CA  95114

Dr. Gene E. Willeke
Mr. Trevenen A.  Wright
Mr. Martin Roche
Dr. Fred H. Tarp
Dr. John P. Harville
Mr. Sidney Brooks
Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz
Mr. John E. DeVito
Mr. Arthur L. Ogilvie
Mr. Hanford Eldh
Dr. Carl W. Chen
Civil Engineering, Stanford University
845 Roble Avenue
Menlo Park, CA  94025

Wildlife Management Supervisor
Calif. State Dept. of Fish and Game
5601 Valhalla Drive
Carmichael, CA  95608

U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA  95825

(Private Citizen)
45 Hillcrest Drive
Orinda, CA  94563

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
   of the Calif. State Colleges
613 Club House Drive
Aptol, CA  95003

Association of Monterey Bay Area
1067 Alameda Street
Monterey, CA  43940

Executive Director
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
   Development Commission
507 Polk Street, Room 320
San Francisco, CA  94102

General Manager, Contra Costa County
   Water District
2020 Railroad Avenue
Pittsburg, CA  94565

Santa Clara County Planning Department
70 West Redding Street
San Jose, CA  95110

Chairman, Santa Clara County Fish and
   Game Commission
794 Coleman Avenue
San Jose, CA  95110

Associate Engineer
Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
1900 Olympic Boulevard
Walnut Creek, CA  94596

Mr. Chester Cohen
Mr. William H. Kerns
Mr. Donald R. Irving
Mr. Horace F. Kurtz
Mr. George W. Webber
Mr. James A. Young
Mr. Thomas J. Sowers
Mr. Chester G. Clinton
Mr. Albert L. Rice
Mr. L. J. Beaufait
Mr. R. W. Hughey
Captain Raymond M. Stone
Mr. James H. Shiro
Mr. J. W. Wark
Fourth Air Force, Civil Engineers
Hamilton Air Force Base, CA  94934

U. S. Bureau of Mines
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102

U. S. Bureau of Mines
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102

U. S. Bureau of Mines
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102

Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA  95825

Federal Highway Administration
225 Vidal Drive
San Francisco, CA  94132

Federal Highway Administration
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102

Federal Highway Administration
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Sari Francisco, CA  94102

Atomic Energy Commission
2111 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, CA  94704

Atomic Energy Commission
2111 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, CA  94704

U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey
555 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA  94111

U. S. Forest Service
2301 Larkin Street
San Francisco, CA  94109

U. S. Geological Survey
855 Oak Grove Avenue
Menlo Park, CA   94025

Mr.  Loren E.  Young
Mr. Lawrence E. Newcomb
Mr. Fred Kindel
Mr. George Kostal
Mr. Don M. Hemovich
Mr. Manning W. Puette
Dr. Howard S. Harris
Mr. David R. Minard
Mr. Vern W. Tenney
Mr. David C. Niklaus
Mr. Kerry W. Mulligan
Mr. George Gribkoff
Mr. Edward E. Whisman
Mr. Cecil V. Martin
U. S. Geological Survey
855 Oak Grove Avenue
Menlo Park, CA  94025
U. S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA  94040

Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
1104 Theo Way
Sacramento, CA  95822

Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
100 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA  94102

Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
100 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA  94102

Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
100 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA  94102

Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.
620 Central Avenue, Building 2C
Alameda, CA  94501

Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.
620 Central Avenue, Building 2B
Alameda, CA  94501

Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.
760 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94102

(Congressman Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.)
141 Borel Avenue
San Mateo, CA  94402

Chairman, State Water Resources
   Control Board
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

State Water Resources Control Board
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

State Dept. of Water Resources
6020 Walnut Street
Orangevale, CA  95662

State Dept. of Water Resources
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Mr. John McClurg
Mr. Austin W. Nelson
Mr. Ray Hunter
Mr. Roy H. Minnick
Mr. Martin L. Roth
Mr. K. Fraschina
Mr. Robert T. Cockburn
Mr. Ferdinand A. Piglowski
Mr. Roger Campbell
Mr. Emanuel H. Pearl
Mr. Allan H. Carson
Mr. Paul C. Soltow, Jr.
Calif. State Dept.  of Water Resources
32nd and S Streets
Sacramento, CA  95816

Calif. State Dept.  of Water Resources
6391 Thirteenth Street
Sacramento, CA  95831

Calif. Farm Bureau  Federation
2855 Telegraph Avenue
Berkeley, CA  94705

State Lands Commission
1600 L Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

City of San Francisco
45 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA  94102

City of San Francisco, Bureau of
  Water Pollution Control
2323 Army Street
San Francisco, CA  94124

City and County of San Francisco
45 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA  94102

Marin Municipal Water District
220 Nellen Avenue
Corte Madera, CA  94925

Alameda County Public Works Dept.
24639 Surrey Way
Hayward, CA  94544

Santa Clara County Health Dept.
1607 Phantom Avenue
San Jose, CA  95125

Solano County Dept. of Public Health
770 Warford Street
Vallejo, CA  94590

San Pablo Sanitary District
13956 San Pablo Avenue
San Pablo, CA  94806

Mr. G. M. Dawes
Mr. R. A. Fisher
Mr. R. S. Ayers
Mr. Jon L. Mason
Mr. John C„ Jones
Mr. George M. Dixon
Mr. R. E. Kreider
Mr. Michael J. Landis
Mr. William G, Hall
Mr. Dennis A. Sandretto
Mr. W. T. Burns
Mr. Jack Becker
Mr. Kenneth J. Linehan
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA  92626

The Irvine Company
550 Newport Center
Newport Beach, CA  92660

University of Calif., Davis
1631 Tamarack
Davis, CA  95616

NUS Corporation
3309 West El Segundo Boulevard
Hawthorne, CA  90250

Johns Manville Products Corporation
East Third Street
Pittsburg, CA  94565

Phillips Petroleum Company, Martinez
One Bush Street
San Francisco, CA  94108

Standard Oil Company of Calif.
Post Office Box 1272
Richmond, CA  94802

Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall
231 Exeter Drive
San Carlos, CA  94070

International Engineering Company
220 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA  94104

Metcalf & Eddy
420 S. Third Street, #32
San Jose, CA  95112

Kaiser Refractories
Box 31A
Moss Landing, CA  95003

Kennedy Engineers
657 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA  94105

Crown Zellerbach Corporation
Wilbur Avenue
Antioch, CA  94509

Mr. R. L. Boyington
Mr. Robert J. Castelli
Mr. Donald H. McCrea
Mrs. E. R. Sanders
Miss Cicely M. Christy
Mr. Bill Heyward
Mr. Leif Erickson
Terry Morrison
Ideal Cement Company
Box 669
Redwood City, CA  94064

Ideal Cement Company
Box 669
Redwood City, CA  94064

Pacific Gas & Electric Company
245 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94105

League of Women Voters, Bay Area
1617 Fifth Street
Alameda, CA  94501

Sierra Club
2853 Shasta Road
Berkeley, CA  94708

950 California Street
San Francisco, CA  94108

Associated Press
318 Fox Plaza
San Francisco, CA  94102

1001 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94109