United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
9500 Thornton Avenue
Newark, California 94560
Memorandum
To:
Mr. Bruce Wolfe
Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Attn: Andree Greenberg
From: Eric Mruz, Refuge Manager
Meg Marriott, Wildlife Refuge Specialist
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
9500 Thornton Avenue
Newark, Ca 94560
Subject: First biennial memorandum for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region permit (RWQCB Order No. R2-2008-0016) requirement; US Fish &
Wildlife Service, Bair Island Restoration Project, Redwood City, San Mateo County.
This memorandum and attached summary data fulfill the first biennial memorandum
requirement of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region
(RWQCB) permit (RWQCB Order No. R2-2008-0016). This memo summarizes the observations
and data collected during the first year after the initial breaches at Outer Bair Island, includes
preliminary results and a brief evaluation of performance objectives. Included are maps,
photographs and figures identifying monitoring station locations and photo points. Also
included are the names of persons who collected data and wrote reports. Copies will be
submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
the city of Redwood City, and the county of San Mateo.
1
This biennial memo is organized into sections corresponding to the 14 required monitoring
elements set forth by the RWQCB. Each section includes a brief summary of the specific
monitoring element requirement, actions taken to complete the requirement, budget to
complete the element and future requirements for each element.
Introduction and Design Changes
Outer Bair is one of four geomorphic units comprising the Bair Island Restoration Project (BIRP)
area. In January of 2009, two breaches were made to the levee between Outer Bair and
Steinberger Slough; the first breach, OB4 was completed on January 14th, and the second
breach, OB1 was completed on January 30th. Two ditch blocks associated with breach OB1
(OBDB1 and OBDB2) were constructed, as were two ditch blocks (OBDB3 and OBDB4)
associated with future BIRP stages. Several design changes were made during construction as a
consequence of problems that arose in the field (USFWS, 2009). The elevation of OB4, and the
elevations and widths of all ditch blocks deviated slightly from original plans. Contractors
experienced delays due to sloughing of perimeter marsh soils into pilot channels. A major
deviation in design occurred as contractors hit a buried wood bulkhead perpendicular to the
direction of breach OB1 and were required to make a deviation in alignment, as they were
unable to remove the entire bulkhead.
Since January 2009, The US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been monitoring 14 elements
set forth by the RWQCB, in order to measure restoration performance and to implement
required adaptive management.
ELEMENT 1 – Obtain Aerial or Satellite Photos
Requirement: Element 1 requires the acquisition of baseline and annual aerial/satellite photos
of sufficient quality to show significant changes in habitats (including slough and vegetation
development, invasive cordgrass invasions, and accretion/erosion).
Action Taken: Design, Community & Environment (DC&E) won the contract for the South Bay
Salt Pond Restoration Project (SBSP), Topic 1; Measuring Habitat Evolution Using Satellite
Imagery. As part of this project, DC&E has been contracted to include Bair Island in their work.
In July 2009, they acquired IKONOS 1 meter multispectral imagery for the entire South San
Francisco Bay south of Highway 92 for June 23rd, and July 4th, 2009 (Figure 1 and Appendix 1).
They also obtained imagery of Bair Island from 2004, which we will use for baseline satellite
imagery.
2
Design, Community and Environment contacts on this project are Brian Fulfrost and David
Thomson.
Budget to complete this element: Design Community & Environment’s efforts will be paid for
through the SBSP’s budget.
Future Action: Design Community and Environment will obtain imagery of the South Bay,
including Bair Island, for at least the next three years.
ELEMENT 2 - Tidal Circulation
Requirement: Element 2 requires that tidal circulation will be initially assessed annually by
reviewing channel cross section data, installing peak water height recorders and direct
observation.
Action Taken: Prior to breaching in January of 2009, Ducks Unlimited (DU) surveyed slough and
channel cross sections at 11 locations. Three of these cross sections were within Steinberger
Slough, and five were within Corkscrew Slough (Appendix 2). The Bair Island Technical Advisory
Committee (BITAC) later deemed that these cross sections did not fulfill monitoring
requirements, as the sections were not in locations at which Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd.
previously surveyed for the Bair Island Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (EIS/EIR) (USFWS and CDFG, 2006). The BITAC agreed to survey five additional cross
sections which were confirmed by Roger Leventhal, hydro-analyst, to be cross sections numbers
20, 19, 1, 3 and 5 from the EIS/EIR.
We are still in the contracting process for this element, and have not yet completed the
baseline or first year survey requirement. We have identified Ducks Unlimited, Phillip Williams
& Associates, Jimmy Kulpa of Environmental Data Solutions, Sea Surveyor, PLS Surveys and
Tetra Tech as potential contractors for this project, and are currently working with the
aforementioned organizations and the USFWS contracting office to complete the bidding and
contracting process.
BITAC agreed that for the Outer Bair restoration, peak water height recorders/tide gauges were
not necessary because this was not deemed a “sensitive area”.
Budget to complete this element: Initial estimates for cross section surveys suggest a rough
budget of between $500 and $1000 per cross section, depending on cross section location.
Analysis of cross section data by a hydro-analyst will incur an additional expense of between
$5000 and $10,000.
3
Future Action: We anticipate surveying the cross sections for both Outer and Middle Bair by
summer 2010. The data obtained from cross sections associated with Outer Bair will have to
serve as both baseline and first year data.
However, cross section #3 taken by DU was in very close proximity to the EIS/EIR cross section
#2, DU #4 is very close to EIS/EIR #5, and DU #1 is very close to EIS/EIR #19. Depending on
BITAC consensus, EIS/EIR #s 19, 2 and 5 may be considered close enough to the respective DU
cross sections to compare them for baseline reference.
ELEMENT 3 – Slough Morphology (Tidal Velocity/Erosion)
Requirement: This element requires the monitoring of channel cross-sections in the major
channels and the breaches, as an indicator of tidal velocity and prism. Channel cross sections
will indicate if channels have scoured by comparing the change in annual data to that of
baseline. If there is a deviation between observed cross-sections and model predicted crosssection, more intensive monitoring may be required.
In addition, five channel monitoring points along larger channels will be marked with rebar and
GPS coordinates recorded. Prior to breaching, the channel width and depth at each point will
be measured. Channel measurements will be recorded annually within the first five years, and
the evolution of small channels and drainage networks within the project will be tracked by
mapping. Sloughs and channels within the geomorphic units will be clearly marked on aerial
photos.
Action Taken: The channel cross-sections have not yet been surveyed for this phase (see
Element 2 – Tidal Circulation, for details). The BITAC determined that a cross section was not
required across breach OB4.
Prior to breaching in January of 2009, DU surveyed at 4 monitoring points along the two largest
channels within the project (Ducks Unlimited, 2009a). Ducks Unlimited also surveyed at two
points within the borrow ditch on either side of where breach OB4 was to be created. Channel
width and depth were measured at each point by means of cross section, and GPS coordinates
were recorded. They did not place rebar at these locations, and because we have GPS
coordinates recorded we have decided not to install rebar for safety reasons.
The evolution of small channels and drainage networks within the project is being tracked by
annually comparing maps of clearly marked sloughs and channels within the project area.
Initially, we have digitized sloughs and channels on satellite imagery provided by DC&E (Figure
2), and will track changes as we obtain images in future years.
4
Budget to complete this element: The budget for this element is already factored into the
budges for Elements 1 and 2. Digitization of sloughs and channels has been done by USFWS
personnel (Meg Marriott).
Future Action: The five channel cross sections agreed upon by the BITAC will be surveyed by
summer 2010.
The six monitoring locations that DU established will be surveyed for depth and width of
channel, when cross section surveys are conducted.
We will track changes in the evolution of small channels and drainage networks within the
project by comparing digitized maps from this year to those of future years.
ELEMENT 4 – Marsh Morphology
Requirement: This element requires the monitoring of marsh plain development, adjacent to
the marked channel monitoring points and at the sites of levee breaches, by placing erosion
stakes at these locations, and by assessing vegetation response. Additionally, marsh plain
development is to be inferred by cross sections and satellite imagery.
Action Taken: In January 2010, we placed sediment/erosion stakes at four locations (Figures 3,
and 4); two adjacent to monitoring points established by DU (DU cross sections #s 11 and 9),
one on the most eastern reach of the main slough (developed by OB1), and one on the south
end of the project area. We used a protocol for placing these stakes based on
protocols/recommendations from USGS, CDFG/Napa-Sonoma Marsh Restoration and Roger
Leventhal. Upon the recommendation of Karen Taylor of CDFG, we did not place the stakes in
the sloughs where they were likely to be displaced by tidal influence, but placed them in the
mudflat, approximately 20 meters up and to the side of the sloughs.
At each location we put 3 PVC pipes (2 inch diameter, schedule 40) in a row, 1m apart. These
pipes were 10 feet in length and at locations #s 1, 2 and 3 we sunk the pipes exactly 4 feet into
the mudflat so that exactly 6 feet of each pipe was sticking up above ground. At location #4, we
sunk the pipes into the mudflat at irregular heights, due to field complications. The pipe closest
to the levee (Northwest-most pipe) measures exactly 5’ above ground, the middle pipe
measures 5’3” above ground and the pipe farthest from the levee measures 4’10” above
ground. We put caps on the tops of all 12 pipes, into which we drilled one 3 inch screw per cap,
with the sharp end of the screw sticking up out of the center of the cap to deter predators from
perching on the pipes.
5
We also established photo points at each of the four sediment/erosion stake locations, to track
marsh plain development and vegetation response visually, on the ground.
Additionally, marsh plain development will be inferred by cross section surveys and analysis and
by comparing satellite imagery from this year to imagery taken in future years.
Budget to complete this element: The cost for the placement of the sediment/erosion stakes
included $120 for the pipe and caps, personnel time, equipment and transportation.
The budget for the cross section and satellite imagery components of this element are already
factored into the budgets for Elements 1 and 2.
Future Action: We will measure the height of each sediment pin/erosion stake annually and
compare results with those from previous years to determine sedimentation/erosion rate. We
will also take pictures annually of the substrate at established photo points.
Additionally, marsh plain development will be inferred by cross section surveys and analysis and
by comparing satellite imagery from this year to imagery taken in future years.
ELEMENT 5 – Habitat Maps and Development
Requirement: This element requires the annual (or biennial) development of habitat maps
using aerial or satellite imagery. Maps will be developed until a target percent cover of
vegetation is reached.
Action Taken: Design Community and Development has obtained satellite imagery (see
Element 1 - Obtain Aerial or Satellite Photos, for details), and has developed a rudimentary
habitat map. However, they are still in the process of fine-tuning the preliminary spectral
signatures. Currently these include Salt Marsh (including: cordgrass, pickleweed/cordgrass,
pickleweed, pickleweed/gumplant, pickleweed/alkali heath, pickleweed/saltrgrass,
pickleweed/spearscale, gumplant, alkali heath, spearscale, lepidium latifolium), Brackish Marsh
(including; alkali bulrush/cattail, alkali bulrush, pickleweed, alkali bulrush/spearscale, alkali
bulrush), Fresh Marsh (including; cattail, bulrush), Levee and Upland (including; alkali grassland,
brassica nigra, bromus/brassica, iceplant, saltgrass) and Non-Vegetative (including; water, mud,
wrack, bare earth). The categories, characteristics and distribution of vegetation species,
vegetation, alliances and associations, and broad habitat types within the study area are based
on sources including; the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), marsh mapping studies
conducted by HT Harvey in the Coyote Creek area, published literature on marsh vegetation
from SFEI and others, and expert knowledge about marsh habitats in the south bay.
6
Budget to complete this element: The budget for this element is already factored into the
budges for Element 1.
Future Action: As the project area is currently inundated at high tide (Figures 5 and 6), there is
very little vegetation within Outer Bair. Design Community and Development will continue to
fine tune their classification and interpretation of vegetative signatures, so that optimally by
the time significant vegetative growth begins, they will be able to definitively map it annually
and track changes as the marsh develops.
ELEMENT 6 – Vegetation/Wetland Assessment Method
Requirement: This element requires that the habitat maps developed for Element 5 – Habitat
Maps and Development be interpreted and analyzed with Geographic Information System (GIS)
for vegetation colonization and to estimate percent cover in the project area. This process will
be supported by ground truthing which will also verify vegetation signatures and species
richness and community composition.
Action Taken: Design Community and Development has obtained satellite imagery (see
Element 1 - Obtain Aerial or Satellite Photos and Element 5 – Habitat Maps and Development,
for details), and has developed a rudimentary habitat map. However, they are still in the
process of fine-tuning the vegetation signatures. Design Community and Development is
confirming vegetation and community signatures in part, based on ground truthing. Until
DC&E confirms vegetation and community signatures, we will be unable to interpret or analyze
maps for colonization or percent cover. However, this element may easily be achieved in future
years, and is not critical at this point because the marsh plain is currently inundated.
Budget to complete this element: The budget for this element is already factored into the
budget for Elements 1.
Future Action: We will use habitat maps completed by DC&E to annually interpret and analyze
vegetation colonization percentages using GIS. We will begin doing this for imagery taken in
2009, 2010 and in future years until a target of 25% cover is reached in a minimum of 5
contiguous acres, once DC&E confirms vegetation and community signatures.
ELEMENT 7 – Birds
Requirement: Birds should be monitored in consultation with the USFWS, as baseline and one
year following the levee breaches. Once the 25% vegetative cover target is met (see Element 6
7
– Vegetation), monitoring should continue during years 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15. Suggested avian
groups include waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds, marsh predators and passerines.
Action Taken: We started official bird surveys in November of 2009. We modeled our protocol
for this survey from that of SFBBO, who has done bird surveys at OB in the past. So we will be
able to compare our results with their past surveys, which we will use as baseline data.
Twice per season, once at morning low tide and once at morning high tide, we spot count at
eight points from the OB levee (Figure 7). We count birds within a 100m radius inside the
project area for 15 minutes at each point. On our first survey we were only able to survey 3
points. We only conducted one survey in Winter 2009/2010 (Tables 1,2 and 3), and we are now
ready to begin two surveys per season, which we will conduct during all seasons in 2010.
Monitors included; Meg Marriott (USFWS), Sarah Austing (USFWS) and John Klochack (Costal
Program – USFWS).
Budget to complete this element: This element requires the time of qualified bird monitors,
equipment (scopes, tripods, binoculars and GPS units) and transportation to the island. Thus
far USFWS personnel have been able to survey for birds using Refuge vehicles and equipment.
This survey takes approximately seven hours per trip (including boat preparation and
transportation) and would cost approximately ? per year (including eight surveys per year) if
contracted out.
Future Action: We will conduct two surveys per season, during all seasons in 2010. We will
then monitor in years 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 after the initial trigger for vegetation monitoring of 25%
has been met.
ELEMENT 8 – Invasive Exotic Plant Species
Requirement: This element requires that invasive non-native plant species be monitored by
direct observation throughout the 15 year monitoring period, especially in the years
immediately after construction. Highly invasive species will be kept off the site to the extent
feasible.
Action Taken: We have recorded the presence of invasive non-native plants during five
separate site visits to Outer Bair Island (Table 4). As the inside of Outer Bair is inundated at
high tide and no vegetation seems to be colonizing the mudflat, we have observed invasives on
the levees and perimeter marsh on the outboard levee side of Outer Bair. We will be able to do
a more comprehensive assessment in spring/summer 2010 when plants are flowering.
8
San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project treated non-native spartina within the
perimeter marsh surrounding the OB1 channel/breach in 2009 (Figure 8). Areas were treated by
helicopter spraying, and GPS data was taken where plants were sprayed.
Monitors/herbicide applicators included: Meg Marriott and SFEISP staff (contact Drew Kerr).
Budget to complete this element: This element requires the time of qualified invasive plant
monitors, and transportation to the island. Thus far USFWS personnel have been able to survey
for invasives using personnel time and Refuge vehicles. If this monitoring were to be
contracted out, it would cost ?
The budget for the spartina monitoring and control for this element is already factored into the
budget for the ISP.
Future Action: We will continue to monitor for invasive plants when we visit Outer Bair Island,
and will be treating spot populations of pampas grass, perennial pepperweed and stinkwort this
spring with backpack herbicide application. San Francisco Bay Estuary Invasive Spartina Project
plans to treat invasive spartina in 2010 (Kerr, pers. comm.).
ELEMENT 9 – California Clapper Rail
Requirement: This element requires that California Clapper Rail surveys be conducted following
USFWS approved survey protocols, after 75% cover of vegetation occurs in a minimum of five
acres of contiguous suitable breeding habitat.
Action Taken: There is currently no habitat for the California Clapper Rail (CLRA) at Outer Bair.
However, we observed a CLRA on the outboard side of the northern levee during our bird
survey in November.
Budget to complete this element: This element requires the time and equipment of the
surveyor and transportation to the island.
Future: We will begin surveys when 75% cover of vegetation occurs in a minimum of five
contiguous acres.
ELEMENT 10 – Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
9
Requirement: This element requires that monitoring for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
(SMHM) commence when mid and high elevation vegetative cover, consisting primarily of
pickleweed reaches at least 75% cover of vegetation in a minimum of five acres.
Action Taken: There is no habitat for SMHM at this time within Outer Bair.
Budget to complete this element: This element requires the time and equipment of the
surveyor and transportation to the island.
Future Action: After 75% cover of mid to high marsh vegetation is achieved, Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse surveys will be conducted according to the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project
protocol for SMHM monitoring.
ELEMENT 11 – Introduced Predators
Requirement: Direct observation
Action Taken: We haven't seen any mammalian predators/tracks the times we have been out
at Outer Bair. We are coordinating with USDA, Animal Services personnel who plan to survey
the area, and possibly set out tracking pads, while we conduct our next bird survey.
Budget to complete this element: This element requires the time and equipment of the
surveyor and transportation to the island. Thus far USFWS personnel, and Animal Services
personnel contracted by USFWS, have been able to survey for predators/tracks using Refuge
vehicles and equipment. If we contracted an organization to do this, it would cost
approximately ? annually.
Future: We will continue to record any observations of predators and/or tracks that we come
across while we are at Outer Bair, and will have Animal Services survey Outer Bair.
ELEMENT 12 – Biosentinel Mercury Monitoring
Requirement: This element requires that biosentinel mercury monitoring be conducted at least
biennially.
Action Taken: We contracted with San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to collect biosentinel
species to test for mercury levels. Native, habitat-specific biosentinels were chosen, so that
their tissues would 1) reflect the food web of the restoration site, and 2) reflect the mercury
dynamics of a particular habitat within the site (Appendix 3). Leticia Grenier determined that
longjaw mudsuckers (Gillichthys mirabilis), would be the best biosentinels for the survey, as
10
they are resident in tidal marsh channels and reflect mercury bioaccumulation in the channel
food web. Tidal marsh biosentinels were selected, because the goal of the restoration is for
Outer Bair Island to develop into a tidal marsh.
Grenier stated that there was no pre-breach habitat for mudsuckers or any other fish before
the breaches were constructed at Outer Bair (pers. comm.), so that baseline surveys would not
have been effective.
To collect samples, we placed 28 minnow traps (funnel traps, baited with cat food, attached to
a line with a milk jug “float” on the other end) at Outer Bair, and 18 traps at Greco Island; a
young marsh chosen for ambient reference habitat because it is comparable to what is likely to
develop at the Bair restoration site. We left traps set for 24 hours. We also seined for fish as a
second method for catching samples at Outer Bair, and captured three-spined stickleback,
Mississippi silverside and arrow gobies using this method.
We caught 6 mudsuckers at Outer Bair using minnow traps and captured three-spined
sticklebacks, Mississippi silversides and arrow gobies using the seining method. We collected
10 mudsuckers at Greco Island. We processed and transferred all samples to SFEI’s analytical
laboratory.
Mercury concentrations in the fish from Outer Bair Island and Greco Island did not differ
significantly. Therefore, these data suggest no difference in mercury bioaccumulation in the
benthic, intertidal food web at the restoration site relative to a nearby site of the same habitat
as the restoration endpoint – tidal marsh. In addition, average mercury concentrations in
longjaw mudsucker and three-spined stickleback from Outer Bair Island were within the same
range as the 2008 data collected by the South Baylands Mercury Project (SBMP), which
collected samples at 20 locations in South San Francisco Bay. However, mercury concentrations
at both Outer Bair and at Greco Island (and by inference, samples collected in 2008 by the
SBMP) were sufficiently high in the species sampled to be of potential concern for the health of
local wildlife.
Field biologists included; Meg Marriott, Sarah Austing and April Robinson of SFEI. For
laboratory information contact Leticia Grenier at SFEI.
Budget to complete this element:
Biosentinel mercury monitoring at Outer Bair, and at the reference site, included; personnel
time, equipment for trapping, transportation expenses, lab analysis of biosentinel species, and
a comprehensive report. The expense for this element, using USFWS personnel and
transportation was $7,500. This monitoring element would have been $9,600 without USFWS
assistance.
Future: We plan to conduct biosentinel mercury monitoring at Outer Bair in 2011.
11
ELEMENT 13 – Structures
Requirement: This element requires that structures be monitored by direct observation.
Action Taken: After initial erosion (up to several months after breaches were completed), the
breaches seem to be stable, and there has been no further noticeable erosion or problems. No
evident erosion to, or overwash of, the levees has occurred. The two ditch blocks on either side
of OB1 have significantly eroded.
Structure Observer: Meg Marriott
Budget to complete this element: This element just requires the time of the observer and
transportation to the island, and can be done in conjunction with other surveys. Thus far
USFWS personnel have been able to survey/observe using Refuge vehicles for transportation. If
this monitoring were to be contracted out, it would be included in the budget of other surveys.
Future Action: We will continue to monitor breaches and ditch blocks during other survey visits
to Outer Bair.
ELEMENT 14 – Water Quality
Requirement: This element requires that salinity, pH, temperature, turbidity and dissolved
oxygen be measured at each breach until receiving water limits have been met for 3 months or
the BITAC has determined that the site cannot meet those limits.
Action Taken: Ducks unlimited established six water quality data monitoring locations (Figure
9, Table 5). Two of these locations were directly in front of, but at least 100 feet out from, each
breach. The other locations were approximately 200 feet up slough and 200 feet down slough
from the aforementioned points, respectively. At these locations we measured required water
quality parameters.
Ducks Unlimited collected pre-breach ambient water quality data before either breach was
initiated in January of 2009, and also collected multiple post-breach water quality samples at
these locations until April (Ducks Unlimited, Inc, 2009). Beginning in April, USFWS took monthly
water quality readings until September, at which time we determined that all water quality
parameters had been within set limits for at least 3 months, with the exceptions of turbidity
and temperature (Tables 6, 7 and 8).
12
The Revised Tentative Order requires that turbidity (at any place more than 100 feet from the
Project Boundary or point of discharge) will not increase by more than 5 NTU if receiving waters
background is <50 NTU, or 10% of background if receiving waters background is >50 NTU.
However, the range in NTUs of pre-breach ambient turbidity measurements was so large within
a 100m area that we suspected the significance of future turbidity measurements (Figures 10
and 11).
Pre-breach ambient turbidity fluctuated in range between 19.6 NTU at site C, and 63.60 at site
F; a difference of 44 NTUs. Ambient turbidity measurements at sites E (24.93 NTU) and F (63.60
NTU), which were less than 100m apart, differed by 38.67 NTUs. This extreme range of
ambient turbidity measurement first caused us to question the relevance of the turbidity
measurement at this site.
Within the last 3 months of sampling, turbidity measurements fluctuated tremendously,
between 18.38 at site B and 59.63 at site B. Before we stopped turbidity monitoring, we took
turbidity measurements up-slough of both breaches where turbidity would not be greatly
influenced by breaches (south of Corkscrew Slough) and found that the turbidity at these
locations was as high as the turbidity at the breach locations.
We concluded, after notifying Andree Greenberg of the RWQCB, that based on the turbidity
information, we would be able to cease turbidity sampling.
The pre-breach ambient temperatures ranged between 10.13 and 10.42 Celsius. The
temperature data that we took after April was unreliable. However, temperature was within
background limits and relatively stable for close to three months when last measured on April
17, so we have just reported the temperature data up until this time (Figure 12).
Monitoring of the other water quality parameters was straight forward.
-
-
-
The RWQCB required that dissolved oxygen would not fall below 5.0 mg/L. Prebreach ambient Luminescent Dissolved Oxygen (LDO), differed between 8.38 at site
A and 8.89 at site E with a mean of 8.65 (Figures 13 and 14). During the last 3
months of water quality monitoring, LDO differed between 5.14 at C and 9.78 at E
with a mean of 7.08.
The RWQCB required that pH would not vary from normal ambient pH by more than
0.5 pH units. Pre-breach ambient pH fluctuated between 7.74 at site A and 8.2 at
site F, with a mean of 8.08 (Figure 15 and 16). During the last 3 months of sampling,
pH differed between 7.48 at site G and 8.09 at site E, with a mean of 7.79.
The RWQCB required that salinity would not increase in the receiving waters by
more than an average of 5 ppt. Pre-breach ambient salinity fluctuated between
30.37 at site A and 30.60 at site G, with a mean of 30.52 (Figures 17 and 18). During
13
-
the last 3 months of sampling, salinity differed between 28.75 at site G and 32.1 at
site G, with a mean of 30.42.
Ducks Unlimited initiated monitoring of specific conductivity with pre-breach
ambient measurements, and USFWS continued to do so until September. Prebreach ambient specific conductivity fluctuated between 46.70 at site A and 46.96 at
site G, with a mean of 46.86 (Figures 19 and 20). During the last 3 months of
sampling, specific conductivity differed between 44.5 at site G and 48.86 at site A,
with a mean of 46.66.
Budget to complete this element:
This element necessitated a data-sonde, personnel time and transportation. One data sonde
may be used for all future water quality monitoring. In 2009 DU used their own data sonde and
transportation as part of their contract. Beginning in April, 2009 USFWS was able to borrow a
sonde from USGS, and surveyed using USFWS personnel and their own transportation
Future: This element is completed, unless BITAC determines otherwise.
Due to DESFBNWR staff changeover in 2008 -2009 and consequent vacancies in fundamental
positions, most of the baseline requirements for this project were not met. In addition, many
first year monitoring elements were surveyed late, and cross section surveys have still not been
done. However, the processes of developing protocols for surveys and engaging contracting
organizations are now well in place. Coordination with DC&E is established, we are sharing
information and we are now working in tandem to create habitat maps of Bair Island.
Schedules, equipment and details necessary to implement monitoring protocols have been
ironed out, and we are moving forward smoothly with the monitoring of all required
monitoring elements for the Outer Bair Island phase of the BIRP (with the exception of the
cross section surveys).
The concerns regarding unacceptable impacts of this project (i.e., increased velocity at Pete’s
Harbor and increased sedimentation rate in the Redwood Creek Shipping Channel) are more
pertinent to the Middle and Inner Bair Phases of the BIRP, and while the baseline monitoring
for Outer Bair was not done in a timely fashion for most elements, the processes for completing
the monitoring are now in place and will be done before the Middle and Inner Bair phases of
the project commence.
14
Copies of water quality data and any other data are available upon request. If you have any
questions or concerns about this project or report, please contact Meg Marriott, Wildlife
Refuge Specialist, USFWS, at (510) 792-0222 ex. 132.
Literature Cited
Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 2009. Self Monitoring Program for Outer Bair Island of the Bair Island
Restoration Project.
Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 2009a. Base Line Cross Section Data for Outer Bair Island of the Bair
Island Restoration Project.
H. T. Harvey & Associates and Philip Williams & Associates. 2004. Bair Island Restoration and
Management Plan: Final EIS/EIR, June 2006.
Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. 2000. Bair Island Restoration and Management Plan: Existing
Hydrologic Conditions Assessment, Revised June 30, 2000.
San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2010. Outer Bair Island Restoration Project – Mercury
Biosentinel Monitoring.
US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009. Bair Island Restoration Project, Redwood City, San Mateo
County - Bair Island Restoration Project, 90 Day Report/As Built Plans – Order No. R2-20080016.
US Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game. 2006. Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Bair Island Restoration and
Management Plan, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Bair Island
Ecological Reserve.
15