Elkhorn Slough Tidal Wetland Project
Parsons Slough Restoration Plan Meeting
Dec. 2, 2008; 10am-12pm
Attendees: Trish Chapman, Noel Davis, Ron Eby, Bryan Largay, Steve Legnard, Suzanne Marr,
Erin McCarthy, Jacob Martin, Jim Oakden, Christina Toms, Dilip Trivedi, Eric Van Dyke, Chris
Webb, Andrea Woolfolk
Meeting purpose: Review of key outstanding issues remaining for implementation of the
Parsons Slough Project
Key Outcomes
Permitting and financing:
1Permitting for projects of a similar nature took about one year after completion of EISs and EIRs.
2EIR for the Bair Island Project cost $1 million, and covered 2000 acres. The cost might be about half of that or less for a 200-400 acre Parsons project.
3Time and cost associated with permitting and marine mammals will depend on what
NOAA Fisheries requires in order to issue a biological opinion. a.
It may be possible to only do a partial CEQA, an IHA. Mitigation may or may not be required. b.
The permitting process will take several months.
4Additional studies are required, including studies on water quality, habitats, geomorphology, and others. Endangered species requirements must be addressed.
5Filling with inert material and adding an organic soil cap should not greatly complicate the permitting process, if the fill is not contaminated. It can be permitted (and implemented) in phases.
6Wetland delineation may need to be done and may be best to do sooner, rather than later.
7It may be useful to pursue a general permit for “opportunistic fill,” analogous to what has been done in Southern California for beach replenishment projects – this would include specifications on the type and quality of fill that could be placed in the wetlands.
Fill:
1Sources of fill besides Graniterock should be pursued. Securing an alternative will give
Graniterock incentive to negotiate costs. a.
One good option is the Santa Cruz Harbor dredge material. It may be of good quality and may be cheaper.
2How will fill effect bathymetry?
Dikes:
1There are different implications of installing rock vs. earthen dikes- associated with alternative 3. a.
different fauna and flora expected to colonize the different substrates b.
different implications for turbidity and other water quality factors c.
different periods of longevity and stability
2Dikes could potentially be constructed of borrowed sediment or external sediment.

Sea level rise:
1The source of sediment that is currently accreting in the slough needs to be identified.
2There is no standard procedure that previous projects have used to accommodate sea level rise in planning phase, other than increasing slope inclines.
Permitting for reusing dredge spoils; regulatory compliance; financing
Chris Webb (CW): Agencies have some concerns. There are general permits issued for opportunistic fill projects. They are 5 year permits and fill must meet certain criteria. Previous experience includes 3 projects in Southern California. Santa Barbara-BEACON: secured permits from all agencies state and federal: State Water Board, Ca. Coastal Commission. 2 other similar projects in Southern California- mostly for sand, but also some clay. … sand plus 35% silts and clays.
Trish Chapman (TC): The regulatory bar goes up when adding fill to a wetland as opposed to a beach. (general agreement)
Dilip Trivedi (DT): At Bair Island, sources were not specified but fill content – contamination- and placement specifications were was spelled out in permit. No compensatory mitigation was required as long as pickleweed was saved. This type of permit is one that Elkhorn might use as a template
Habitat conversion is ongoing and fill is being placed. The port is being dredged and fill used to create tidal marsh- they are currently subsided. 4ft is being placed.
At Hamilton, seasonal wetlands around the periphery are being restored as mitigation. They will be better quality.
Christina Toms (CT): Montezuma Wetlands (San Francisco Bay) – Roger Levanthal would be a good person to talk to – he will have insight into some permitting issues, especially around sensitive species (Elegant tern)
DT: Lead agencies: Hamilton – Army Corps of Engineers; Bair Island – USFWS National
Wildlife Refuge and Moffatt and Nichol lead the permitting process. Permitting process required
EIS and EIR and took about 1 year after that. Both projects are on federal lands.
Marine Mammals
Noel Davis (ND): NOAA fisheries might have issues about losing a harbor seal pupping area.
They may have specific requirements, such as with loud noises. Permits take several months.
Incidental harassment might be a problem during construction and we may need an IHA
(Incidental Harassment Authorization). It allows some disturbance of marine mammals. I’ve seen it used for noise. They might want some here because of the hauling area. They might want haulout area created elsewhere. ISMID (part of CEQA) might be OK rather than a full CEQA.
If the project is presented as reversing a trend in declining habitat, it may not require mitigation.
Could leave pupping area while reducing prism.
Jim Oakden (JO): Education about Elkhorn Slough, we might need to convince permitting agencies that the seal pupping area will disappear if we don’t do a restoration project… Need to find a rational person in permitting chain. There is no wetland delineation done. That might be good to do. It should be addressed early.

ND: I think if it is perceived that habitat values will be lost without a restoration project, then some mitigation requirement may be lower.
TC: But it may be hard to win that argument
CW: Everything below MHHW is wetland.
JO: I’m worried about the low end (the unvegetated mudflats and subtidal channels).
Eric Van Dyke (EVD): We do have the wetland habitats mapped in GIS, but it is not clear that agencies would accept those as official wetland delineation.
BL: Mitigating fill in wetlands vs. tidal channels…
ND: Any wetland is under 404. Wetlands tend to receive higher protection. There is a nation wide permit for restoration, but it is not clear if that would apply for a project at this scale
DT: Area to be restored is 200-400 acres; Bair island: 2400 acres- 400 is receiving sludge;
Hamilton: 1600 acres. Self-mitigating. Consensus driven process. You need initial studies.
Bair Island species of concern:
NMFS concerned with salmon, sturgeon
USFWS concerned with Salt Marsh Harvest Mice, Clapper Rail, and Least Tern
At Elkhorn the main species of concern may be the sea otter.
Sharks are not a species of concern, but their habitat will be covered under requirements for central fish habitat
Financing
DT: Bair Island: $1 million for EIR. Can’t tell budget for here easily due to studies that need to be done for endangered species (e.g., otters).
DT: Marine mammal requirements include endangered species impacts – that’s review of quite a few documents.
ND: But it won’t be as expensive as $1mill. It will be about $50,000 to consult with USFWS on sea otters. The question is “How much detail does the NOAA fisheries service need to issue a biological opinion?” People are already monitoring otters.
Ron Eby (RE): Not necessarily in Parsons because access is difficult.
DT: Studies needed include: water quality, habitat, geomorphic. Some studies can be lumped together. Transportation would not be a major impact as long as not all the sediment is brought in by trucks- would be done in stages anyhow. Need to specify how much will be brought, phases, duration, etc. Phases could be permitted separately.
JO: In SF Bay there were requirements about grain size and organic content. We’re talking about filling with a cap. Have you dealt with this?
DT: Yes. It depends on what you’re capping. And if the sediment is clean, it does not complicate the regulatory setting. Programmatic permits can dramatically reduce costs, but then require subsequent environmental reports for individual projects.
?: Did the railroad require mitigation?
EVD: We don’t know much about that.
Andrea Woolfolk (AW): We do have information on that which we could reference.

Cost associated with adding fill
DT: There was tipping fee fore each truckload at Bair Island. Costs include trucking, placement, etc.
CW: Graniterock has a limited capacity for disposal space. They never said they would give it away, they always gave a price. They prefer trucking. They have a trucking line.
JO: I’ve dealt with them wearing other hats. They’d love to have a place to dispose. If they get the sense that we’re desperate, they’ll charge as much as they can. If we have another source, they’ll negotiate. We definitely need to pursue harbor dredge material as an alternative.
Bryan Largay (BL): There is a Moss Landing harbor dredge project scheduled for 2010. Let’s discuss the implications of using that to cap fill in Parsons.
Group: Issues include invasive species, contaminants.
DT: Maintenance dredging can lead to cleaner sediment below the top layer.
CW: Santa Cruz Harbor: dredge material would be chemically clean; is very fine- even split between sand and silt and clay. They offered to bring it here for free. Currently being taken to inland fill. Coordinating with the Santa Cruz Harbor is a good option.
Armored dikes vs. windbreaks
CW: These dikes are associated with alternative 3. They are to contain the sediment, so it doesn’t leave site. These can be rock or dirt. Dirt is cheaper…was in initial reports, but backed off in restoration reports, but I’m not sure that is the best approach given velocities in Parsons.
Once site is filled levees/dikes could maybe be removed unless evidence indicates we need to keep them…There’s an option for a temporary sediment dike, expected to later erode.
JO: A sediment dike would increase turbidity.
ND: Once it’s established, vegetation would help contain sediment.
DT: At Bair Island we built containment dikes with the good sediment from underneath and used the fine stuff more the marshes.
EVD: What about using trees, like eucalyptus as a wooden dam?
Group: Eucalyptus may not be the best choice – tannins?
CT: Need to weigh how permanent we want a dike to be (gives example showing issues with permanence).
BL: There are areas of deposition on marsh plain, and in Parsons.
EVD: But be cautious – we don’t know a lot about the dynamics in Parsons.
JO: But as Parsons widens we get erosion.
Discussion around beginning projects in fingers, and building containment dikes at “wrist” and opening at 6 th finger.
CW: Need a quiet area for sediments to settle out.
JO: I thought we needed a structure across the mouth in order for any sediment addition project to succeed?
CW: Not if we start in fingers, actually a good place to start.
EVD: I don’t think we know velocity in Parsons.
JO: Could build a sequence of erodible dikes.
BL: Parsons appears to be flood dominated, at least in parts – see page 19 of the restoration plan
CW: If you’re willing to risk it, could start with small sediment retention structure, and if it fails, next one is more substantial.

JO: Adaptive management
BL: But if a dike fails and sediment goes every where, will next phase be harder to permit?
ND: Probably harder to permit a big sediment retention structure.
DT: armored, rocks vs. unarmored, earthen
DT: It doesn’t have to be permanent (sand bags).
BL: I don’t know that we would get support for sand bags.
Suzanne Marr (SM): No
ND: There is certainly a perception that an engineered structure is more invasive than earthen structure. You would have to construct strong argument as to why engineered solution would be superior.
Discussion around borrow pits – those have impacts, too.
ND: Earthen dikes will be more naturally colonized by animals you might expect in area; rock dams would attract different organisms from a different area.
TC: Why would you use borrow pits, not imported sediment?
DT: Imported sediment may be too silty/clay for a good dike.
CW: If the imported sediment is suitable, it should be used instead of borrow pit, to build sediment retention.
CW: Pretty long fetch from RR bridge to fingers – a westward wind.
DT: geotube, 8’ diameter, closed on side, pump material in, and then stitch up, allows you to use any material you want. Temporary.
JO: How high would the structure need to be?
CW: Need about 3’ fill
DT: Structure needs to be about 3’ higher.
RE: Where is borrow area?
EVD: Closer is better
RE: cost vs. impacts
DT: Borrow area then filled with incoming imported sediment.
Preservation of existing channels – how will fill placement accommodate those?
CW: Never intended to fill channels, intended to fill broad flat areas. Want to maintain channels, but not sure how to do it.
EVD: I thought there was a “memory” of channels in filled areas, will self correct if filled.
DT: Could come in from land side to maximize fill on plain.
CW: Access to landside difficult.
EVD: Could we use dewatered material from Graniterock.
CW: They would prefer that.
EVD: They have huge volumes of dried material. Would that be more stable?
DT: It would be more stable.
BL: Cost would increase.
CW: They have plenty, can see it from aerials
CW: Start at tip of finger, build full dike, no tide, fill area with sediment, notch dike to let water in, channel forms, monitor. If it worked then do it again farther down finger. Keep going until the place is filled.
DT: Pumping sediment will always be cheaper than trucking.

CW: A slurry line would need to be 14 miles, but it is all downhill, and may need a return line, to pipe slough water back to quarry. They can’t send all that water away.
ND: Then you have entrainment issues.
BL: But volume is trivial relative to the power plant.
TC: Just tap into power plant’s already entrained water.
TC: The problem with the sequence from tip of finger to mouth of finger is you have to keep cutting off tidal flow to the tip with each new step.
CW: You’re right- need to do a finger at a time.
TC: Makes me think a priority should be a holding site so we can accept available sediment when available, until you have enough volume to do an entire project.
EVD: It’d have to be an upland site.
TC: Yes
BL: But that can be problematic, because every time you handle the material it costs; expensive to handle it several times.
SM: But it addresses timing problems.
JO: Just have a finger diked off; just put sediment in as it becomes available, and open it when it has enough. You lose that habitat until you have enough sediment, but allows you to take sediment when available, without needing upland holding area. If you want to cap, might need two fingers going.
CT: Don’t blend rooting zone sediments with inert material – wastes it. Better to save it for narrow range where it is really needed.
Lunch
BL: Sediment deficit and failure of model to keep up with the projected sea level rise- due to extent of subsided habitats, which can compete for limited sediment. Deficit largely attributed to
Moss Landing harbor entrance and river diversions. We are talking about 4.5 mil cubic yds of material. In order to reach balance of supply and demand for sediment, an external source of sediment is needed. What does sustainability mean to you? Should we change what we’ve been using as projected sea level rise figures?
SM: If you have a sediment dam, sill, at certain height, it won’t matter after a while.
AW: Are we tracking accretion now? Is that enough to keep up w/ sea level rise?
EVD: 3mm/yr
ND: Where is the sediment coming from that is accreting?
BL: Not sure. Agriculture runoff, head of Elkhorn Slough is a sediment source.
ND: So accretion is in Elkhorn Slough in general, not in Parsons particularly?
BL: Yes.
EVD: 4 monitoring stations – Azevedo Marsh, south of creek on west side, exit of Rubis Creek, and one on reserve. Surface accretion, subsidence, vegetation, tides… we monitor a bunch of things. They’re doing ok, but not in the face of sea level rise.
BL: Sill at mouth of Elkhorn Slough reduces bed load transport. Reduction of sediment export depends on a number of factors.
TC: Does a sill at Parsons reduce erosion? That is an unanswered question.
BL: A sill at mouth does reduce scour of main channel and reduces the competition for sediment there.
JO: Earthquakes?

EVD: No evidence of substantial subsidence due to earthquakes.
JO: Benchmarks resurveyed?
EVD: There was a major adjustment to benchmarks after earthquake. Now there is no evidence that there has been movement. Most are at embankments along railroad tracks.
BL: Has Moffat & Nichol worked on other systems facing sea level rise issues?
DT: A lot of projects have to include it in the planning process. There is no single answer- but they all anchor around anchoring places that cannot subside. It may mean keeping marsh areas high, introducing sediment to system – can Salinas River be rerouted, upstream rivers rerouted?
It’s been put towards adaptive management.
CT: All that’s been done are adjustments to sloping edges - increasing the incline.
SM: There are more questions than answers. Also, what’s going to happen with water supply in
Salinas Valley and how might that effect Elkhorn Slough? We should ask these general questions.
BL: It’s hard to know if it’s all worth it. (Cut on arm analogy.)
TC: In Elkhorn Slough we’ve already lost marsh. Getting it back is iffy, then you add sea level rise.
EVD: In places where tides are removed, they’ve maintained pretty well. We could maintain some sort of marsh behind a control structure, but would it be a functional marsh? What are we trying to sustain? That’s the question.
AW: If we make fixes here, we can serve as a guide for other projects with drowning marshes.
DT: Little input and output here. Bathymetry doesn’t remain static with sea level rise. With sea level rise it is similar to having a deeper channel. More sediment will be lost from the system.
Loss of sediment from system needs to be addressed.
JO: A missing piece of information is that there is accretion going on, according to EVD. If we can fix the problem with the system, we can have a chance in the face of sea level rise. We need to know the source of the sediment that is contributing to accretion. It may be from channel erosion, but there may be another source. It is missing information that we need.