MEETING NOTES
Elkhorn Slough Tidal Wetland Project
Joint Meeting of the Science Panel and Strategic Planning Team
Large Scale Management Actions
September 12th, 2011, 9am-4:30 pm, ESNERR
Summary and Transcript of Discussion
Attendees: David Birznieks, Ross Clark, Rachel Couch, Nina D’Amore, Andrew DeVogelare, Mike
Foster, Monique Fountain, Grey Hayes, Jessie Lacy, Bryan Largay, Steve Lonhart, Kalle Matso,
Shawn Milar, Joanna Nelson, Sarah Newkirk, Josh Plant, Dave Schwartz, Mark Silberstein, Doug
Smith, Becky, Suarez, Eric Van Dyke, Kerstin Wasson, Beth Watson, Varyl White, Andrea
Woolfolk.
Speakers:
Kerstin Wasson (ESNERR), Background of CICEET grant
Beth Watson (Environmental Protection Agency), Elkhorn Slough Stratigraphy
Sarah Newkirk (The Nature Conservancy), Management Implications of Sea-level
Rise Models
Eric Van Dyke (ESNERR), Modeling Sea-level Rise
Presentations and accompanying handouts are available at
http://elkhornslough.org/tidalwetland/meetings.htm
MEETING PURPOSE:
1. Learn how rapid paleoecological assessments with high spatial coverage increase understanding
of the processes that support salt marsh sustainability and inform the historical baseline for
restoration targets.
2. Learn how a geospatial simulation model that incorporates feedbacks between relative sea level
rise, sedimentation, and vegetation dynamics can be applied to predict future tidal wetland
distribution and potential marsh migration pathways.
3. Compare geospatial visualizations of predicted habitat impacts under alternative sea level and
land use scenarios.
4. Participants understand and provide feedback on a proposed salt marsh restoration project at
Minhoto and Seal Bend.
9:00
Welcome
Salt marshes at Elkhorn Slough: past, present and future
Kerstin Wasson, Research Coordinator, Elkhorn Slough Reserve - intro to the the CICEET
grant collaborators and objectives
Elkhorn Slough marsh stratigraphy - Elizabeth Watson, U.S. EPA
Clarifying Questions:
 Mike Foster: clarification of color and kind of marsh depicted on slide? Green=
marsh or wetland of any kind
 Steve: Did you interpolate inbetween cores? Yes
 Beth: Places diked, the sediment oxidizes and changes properties of sediment.
 Steve: Threshold for being marsh or wetland? Beth: Roots present in the sediment.
Verified with % organics (more than 10% based on surface calibrations).
 Steve: area of the box? ~ 50%
 Doug Smith: changed scale on so it's out of range of the dataset (with respect to one
of the figures shown in the presentation)
 Beth: Based on this data, maybe a hydrologist can tell me how subsurface flow has
changed
 Beth: My question for this group is, has this changed your perspective?
Clarifying Questions on sediment accumulation:
 Joanna: Does this take into account current sea level rates? yes
 Mike: show us the locations where you sampled sediment accumulation
 Jessie: feldspar marker (accretion) vs SET (elevation)? Beth: both were done at the
same location
 Sarah: If you de-trended sea level information and looked at sea level variability,
where was sea level during these times? Beth: No pattern, may want to use another
datum such as MHW.
 Steve: Do feldspar plates at high and low elevations have a similar soak time? Beth:
no they do not and no correction was made to account for this.
Marsh stratigraphy - technical discussion
 Mike: Why lost resilience? Beth: Just saying we have more marsh than 500 years ago
does not tell you the condition. Mike: typical ecological defn. of resilience is ability
to withstand change? Eric: Will touch on this in his presentation, as he also talks
about how marshes track sea level.







Jessie: acretion rates should correspond better with elevation rate. Beth. The fact
that the rates are the same means core could be migrating. We don't know how
related.
Steve: temporal integration of bar graph. Beth: corresponds to a 200 y interval.
Steve: how does time averaging influence results presented across time? Beth: can
look at a finer scale analysis of cores but depth of roots go across 200 years.
Beth: Porosity of channel and marsh sediments (marsh higher and more
compressable).
Beth: Look for evidence of channel migration. You can see this especially at Yampah.
It's a big job to put the two views together.
Bryan: how should we view habitat conditions of places that could not core. Beth:
Not sure.
FROM THE WHITEBOARDS
Thoughts on management implications of marsh stratigraphy
 Carlton:
o Integrate regional paleo-ecology
 Becky: importance of having a management goal in relation to habitat needs for
larger scale view. Important reference for restoration but more important to know
what estuarine habitats needs are on a larger scale.
o Emphasize large scale needs (regional or west coast) to manage for estuarine
current estuarine conservation needs (in terms of ecosystem services and
species needs).
 Jessie: Perspective has changed now that we are working in a depositional
environment
o Sediment deposition is encouraging.
 Sarah: Have been skeptical of paleo-ecology of targeting as a goal. But recently have
seen very good work. Can expect success in restoration projects since these habitats
have been there before. As an advocate can lobby using this information.
o Range of paleo-habitats useful but shouldn't drive decision.
 Andrea: historical ecologist. Believe in restoration versus engineering. Unclear on
what freshwater inputs have been. Encouraged that we have sediment accretion.
o Range of paleo-habitats is useful particularly freshwater
 Eric: Now that we see that we have deposition but losing marsh elevation. Knowing
this we can look to see if Water Quality is a driverof marsh loss.
o Water quality could be a driver





Steve: What is the error of the polygons? Need to clearly understand variation or
could be making mistakes
o Formal error analysis
Doug: is there corroborating evidence of these findings?
Charlie Endris responds: have seen marsh accretion; and pannes accreting
Doug: need to look at the vertical movement of sediment too.
o Integrate lateral loss of sediment
Andrew: Where is the sediment coming from, that is accumulating in the pannes?
How might that influence management decisions?
o Understand where sediment is accumulating to inform sediment addition
projects.
Joanna: We cannot ask for 10% of historical but must ask for 90%-120%. Have
corroborating evidence
o Large scale ecosystem services assessment to inform Elkhorn Slough
conservation strategies.
-Break-
Call for participants in sediment additions working group - Bryan
 Timeline: develop over the next 3 months, work through 2012.
10:55 Management implications of sea level rise predictive models
Sarah Newkirk, The Nature Conservancy
 Steve: Time consideration for land acquisition? Sara: FEMA can be more relevant in
acquiring land. FEMA has a growing budget and hazard mitigation funds do to. How do
we tap into these funding structures. Not have repetitive claims and acquire parcels to
provide resilience.
Modeling relative sea level rise and salt marsh sustainability at Elkhorn Slough
Eric Van Dyke, Geographical Ecologist, Elkhorn Slough Reserve
 Joanna: Jim Morris has a similar model for the east coast, is this from Elkhorn slough.
Eric: yes, based on his model but calibrated to Elkhorn Slough.
 Joanna: At this point does accretion also mean elevation. Eric: No, just accretion.
 Mark: making assumption that plane is stable. Eric: no, subsidence can also happen. This
is just tuning in on one process.
 Bryan: Can you distinguish accretion from elevation?
o deposition: sediment in the water column landing on marsh surface

12:00
o accretion: longer time period, stays on marsh plane and build surface.
o elevation: product of relative sea level rise, accretion minus subsidence.
Jessie: what accretion rate are you using? Eric: 4.2 mm, the current rate at Elkhorn
Slough
-Lunch-
Modeling sea level rise - technical discussion
 Kerstin: clarification- scenarios of sea-level rise just looking at sea level rise not any
marsh accretion? Eric: weakness of SLAM. Accretion -solved, subsidence - SLAM has
national levels and we can put in a local sea level rise, the difference is subsidence. We
are seeing a higher subsidence rate here.
 Jessie: Morris rate would depend on subsidence and if it varies locally. Did you take that
into account ?? Eric: you are correct and this needs to be corrected. Jessie: so you are
assuming the rates are due to ??
 Jessie: Sudden increase in ?? look-up table of marsh range needs to change. You need a
feedback loop.
 Mark: Is there anything to learn from mystery spots such as Big Creek? What is your
intuition?
 Eric: I have puzzled why the elevation change occurs North to South and East to West.
Only way the model can explain it is a local downward movement.
 Beth: I think Azevedo side is resting on something other than estuarine sediment. Dave
Schwartz corroborates.
 Mark: Maybe a cycle of dramatic tectonic changes. Are there other examples along the
coast?
 Eric: Model tells us that the sudden scenario we (the marsh) would recover relatively
quickly. And that last big earthquake didn’t have much of an effect on elevation.
 Ross: We know Elkhorn Slough is sediment starved. If those were changed (sill at mouth)
how would that affect our accretion rates?
 Eric: Sediment supply is not a critical factor until you reach the edge of the curve. Does
not seem like the slough is sediment starved.
 Andrea: Do you want to share your subsidence data with respect to deep and shallow
subsidence?
 Eric: Best in measurements on the marsh.?? I am having trouble answering the question
of where and how much subsidence there is?
 Becky: Interested in comment about water quality role in marsh loss. What studies have
been done?
















Eric: There are better folks that me to answer this but we have been encouraged to do
studies.
Becky: could there have been some runoff etc. that could have impacted this area (Big
Creek) in particular that would make it the outlier that it is..
Eric: Would be surprised that we would have missed something like that. Slough records
of inputs is very solid.
Kerstin: Beth or Joanna do you want to give an update on the work you are doing with
respect to nutrients and decomposition rates?
Beth: High nutrient levels implicated in decomposition rates. Doing a comparative study
in Morro Bay and various places in the East Coast looking at inundation times to gain
more info. Joanna will be collaborating with Beth locally.
Eric: Aerial photo work showed similar rapid marsh loss in lower slough that has
recovered. Same in upper slough but has not recovered. This may be driven by water
quality.
Mark: Come back to Ross question, started 25 years ago in response to a massive loss of
sediment. Net export ~ 2m cy per year. Marsh are one part of the system.
Eric: Started making noises that net export has decreased and probably stopped.
Mark: Want to ensure we are not de-coupling marshes from some of the larger process.
Bryan: dramatic increase versus gradual models for sea level rise. Not sure I would
attribute the harbor to a step function.
Eric: you are correct, we have no data. Hard to predict the mean tidal average and
would that be independent of subsidence.
Jessie: Modeling what happened at the harbor mouth is a huge constraint.
Andrew: Earthquake is a large subsidence.
Eric: Does not look like movement during earthquake was that substantial.
Joanna: Do you have info on the slope angle?
Eric: just seems like a matter of elevation
FROM THE WHITEBOARDS
Thoughts on the management implications of sea-level rise models
 Ross: We are all facing the same issues with different variables.
o ID opportunities and constraints for coastal habitat conservation large scale
 Kerstin: Carneros may not be the answer for marsh migration












Steve: It's not encouraging because there is so much uncertainty. Let's start building a
coastal plain somewhere otherwise the marshes will go away. If we want to keep the
marsh then we need to do some engineering.
o Pursue resolution of uncertainty
o Build habitat
Shawn: Refine the SLAM models. If we engineer marshes will that besustainable?
o What is the sustainability of constructed habitat
o consider any (all) marsh migration pathways
Dave: dynamic system, we can't stop it. Recent is anthropogenic. Should continue to
look at all the factors that involved. Resolve uncertainties. Skeptical about sediment
addition. Thought of dredging it up and putting into the slough doesn't make sense.
o Continue learning and monitoring
Joanna: Rolling easements. Ultimately that is very different form property ownership as
we see it today.
o explore rolling easements and private property implications.
Mark: Carneros is one of the answers, resolving uncertainty is not high on my list. Post
glacial distribution of flora caused a redistribution. We have may get relic populations
that repopulate when sea-level drops again. Rolling easements could be part of the
answer.
Jenna: Agree with Joanna's statement on farmers.
o Explore impacts to farmers and collaborate and learn.
Bryan: Look forward to reconcile the numbers and compare them to other data. PWA
assumed no marsh change. So compare your predictions with theirs and have an agreed
upon suite for management decisions.
o reconcile slough projection studies.
Bryan: Dune field migration should be looked at too.
o Understand large scale social and economic implication of sea level rise and put
marsh migration into this perspective.
Beth: One way to restore marsh might be to introduce cord grass that grows at a lower
level.
o Put cord grass into Eric's SLAM and into the slough.
Andrea: Eric's work shows that subsidence is contributing to marsh loss so we need to
look at understanding these mechanisms better
o Understand mechanism of subsidence and link to potential solutions.
Andrea: can SLAM models help us with the sediment addition projects
o Use predictions to help us improve Minhoto restoration sediment addition.
Rachel: added checks to sustainability










Jessie: breadth of possible outcomes. Always in favor of reducing uncertainty. Need to
think of landscapes that have a broad range of looks. Think about resiliency.
o Consider an adaptive strategy to absorb the uncertainty and build resilience.
o Keep SET and Feldspar experiments
Sarah: All models at their basic level are wrong but they shed light on possible future
scenarios. There are commonalities across models. Look at these instead of the minutia.
o Take care in how we are using model output for planning.
Sarah: Coastal conservation needs to take place in the discussion of a large land use
planning discussion.
Sarah: Rolling easements are theoretically awesome. Entire suite of property
management tools and strategies. ESF should put some energy towards these tools and
this would excite the land use planners in the areas.
o Collect and test land use tools and strategies
Becky: Our vision is protecting and conserving salt marsh. Capitalize on what people are
good at. Let's apply that to the slough. What does this information tell us about what
the slough is good at? Maybe we need to rethink how we are looking at the slough.
Maybe salt marsh is not what the slough is best at. Maybe it's better at some other
function. We need to be open to let the data tell us what the slough is good at. Take the
path of least resistance with a habitat health goal. Sometimes it seems like we are
pushing the boulder up hill.
o Analyze feasibility and sustainability of ecosystem services.
John: Clear that the system is stressed. Clear indication we need to address the
stressors. We need to clean the water more to increase resilience.
o Target stressors
o Decreases stresses esp. water quality to increase resilience of Elkhorn Slough.
Steve: where is the likely habitat outside of Elkhorn Slough .
o Large scale analysis of habitats in new places
Joanna: Conservation international is looking into getting support for living shorelines.
As part of California energy commission - west Marin Co. use "Scenario planning".
o Consider living shorelines
o Use scenario based planning
Dave: We should not expect to see salicornia up the san Lorenzo river.
o We should expect the new environments to look the same as the ones we are
losing.
Rachel: "Moving the conservation goal post" on climate adaptation.
http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/MediaCenter/Reports/Archive/2011/Moving-the-Conservation-Goalposts.aspx
-BreakImproving the Proposed Project for Salt Marsh Restoration Through
Sediment Addition
A presentation by Bryan Largay with facilitated group discussion and feedback to the Tidal
Wetland Project and project consultants















Eric: It only costs 2.5 Million for 17 acres?
Jessie: Were all sites previously diked or just area where there was loss due to marsh
degradation.
Bryan: 4 reasons:
all diked, others were not on ESNERR owned land and
accessibility a lot less,
until we understand the dieback mechanism I'm hesitant to add sediment.
Areas chosen are highly disturbed and currently poor habitat
Beth: you have to compare it to sediments of Elkhorn Slough (in response to a point of
concern about sediments from the Pajaro being contaminated).
Eric: With the Parsons project there was hope that there was a research component but
there wasn't, will there be in this project?
o Learning component SETs etc.
Bryan: This is a new development that we have funding so now is a good time to talk
about research. . SETs and survey of the surface.
Becky: Interested in the current benthic fauna
o Why the lack of invert diversity at Minhoto
o What is the current biodiversity? (Nearly non-existent, in terms of macroinverts.)
Kerstin: Has rapid assessment data of large inverts that compliments the MLML benthic
core data. 6th finger has gappers, oysters, etc. The one below the Minhoto property is
barren
Jessie: Would you build channels or let them build themselves?
o Are and what hydrologic modifications are required for the project?
Dave: What other sources of sediment being considered?
o What is the source?
Bryan: Project has two main phases. Planning and implementation. Pajaro sediment
source is sufficient for planning phase.

















Dave: What is the grain size of the river material?
o What is the grain size?
Bryan: soil is built up silt and not actually levee material.
Steve: Would like a schematic of the physical layout of the land. What's natural vs ag. so
we can see the gradient etc. and how the sediment will be placed.
o Aerial design cartoon
Bryan: Very good question of whether we place the sand and see what happens or
engineer the landscape. Much of this will depend on whether it's okay for the sediment
to move.
Beth: How did you calculate how much sediment and how did you account for
subsidence.
Bryan: Target elevation half way between MHL and MHHW. Needs to be refined.
Beth: Would there be a game plan if sediment turns out not to be good.
o What if the sediment is not okay?
Bryan: Twenty samples (2-3 per bench) and about half meet the SF Bay project. All meet
the criteria of being as or less polluted than local mud.
Becky: Kayak landing? Do we want to discuss that today?
o Include kayak landing
Bryan: This is up to the manager but is currently in our phase II plans.
Mark: Interested in seeing this as a model. Concerned about the cost, $30K you can buy
pretty good farm land for that.
o Cost, comparable to other projects
o Could be a model
o Timeframe of sustainability
Dave: How difficult is it to evaluate compaction?
o Where else sucessful
Shawn: what is the sustainable timeframe?Assuming this is clean and permitable, the US
Fish and Wildlife service is focused on Elkhorn Slough and is willing to cost share and
help find funding
o Coastal program (and others) cost share and funding possibilities
Steve: Need funding for monitoring and adaptive management for future projects. If not
you will be missing a valuable opportunity.
Rachel: Monitoring and consider the kayak landing.
Kerstin: In addition to the monitoring, we will need adequate staffing and guidance to
do that monitoring. With Eric and Beth gone we do not have that expertise in house.
o Adequate staff and guidance for monitoring.
John: check for monitoring and kayak landing. Look to SF Bay for examples.
















o Learn from SFBay sediment addition
Becky: Project will be sandwiched between Moonglow Dairy and on the other side with
the increased native Ohlone Indians.
o Outreach and communications (esp. to neighbors)
Jessie: Impressed that you are as far as you are with funding
o Excited to try
o correct scale
Andrea: Excited, likes doing restoration that does not include hard structures. Need to
identifiy gaps and see if we can put some restoration components (treatments)
o Lack of hard structures is appealing
o Add a research component if possible
Eric: Excited. Adaptive management column. Disagree that this is the right scale? Are
there three divided parcels.
Bryan: There are 7 and proposal using 3.
o Attempt large scale for multiple replicates
Check for funding monitoring and multiple treatments.
Brook: why not permit it all at once?
April: pursue a programmatically
Brook: Monitoring tends to be costly and may not be supported
Brook: Construction monitoring was costly and difficult.
Andrea: different heights, tidal drainage, adding nutrients
Eric: drainage
Steve: Why was the adaptive management removed from Parsons?
Nina: sill was no longer adjustable, reducing the potential ecological consequences and
this deprioritized the adaptive management somewhat
Bryan: How do we learn from the Parsons Slough sill?
Bryan: It's clear that we need an adaptive management/ monitoring group
Round table on meeting feedback
 John: future of sea level predictions
 Nina: How to make some of this experimental
 Becky: Liked it
 Varyl: Exciting to me to hear about the work and how I'm going to talk to the public
about it.
 Jessie: nice balance for presentation and feedback. Some meetings not enough
feedback.
 Andrea: Excited to see Beth's work and the changes of marsh over time.











4:30
Beth: Forced me to put the data in a format that others could understand. Looking
forward to sediment addition project.
Eric: relieved. We have a habit of instigating a panic before meeting. Learned a lot about
management implications. I've been waiting for this for a long time and see it as a clear
win.
April: Based on Parson project the success of early outreach with regulatory compliance
Brook: Echo
Bryan: head is spinning with all the information. Research finding very exciting.
Fascinating to place us in the continuum. I hope we can leverage some of the research
to make management decisions.
Mark: Struck by what a rich place this is for pursuing all sorts of issues over time. From a
management perspective it's amazing that you have funding at this stage. There is likely
a rich learning opportunity for the history.
Dave: Appreciate the richness of Elkhorn Slough, Eric, Beth and Bryan's work. Learned a
lot about sediment addition. I'm less skeptical. When you take a system like this and
dike it, drain it, pull ground water out there are unintended consequences and trying to
fix it will be challenge. You should consider pulling in Ivano to have a grad student or
class.
Kerstin: Learned so much from Beth and Eric. Really learned from everyone else’s
perspective. Very effective to hear the quiet voices as well as the loud ones. How do we
bring along everyone that was not in the room today and able to think through the
issues together.
Shawn: Like the format. Helps to hear it and go out and see it.
Steve: echo appreciation for what Eric and Beth have done. Intrigued by Minhoto
project and curious to see how the funding will work out. There will be expenses that
inflate what we think it will take.
Rachel: My introduction to the slough. Great to see us face our issues of sea level rise
head-on.
Adjourn