South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Team, Shoreline Study Partners. February 10, 2011 Ravenswood Working Group Meeting Outcomes

Transcription

1 To: From: Re: South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Team, Shoreline Study Partners Center for Collaborative Policy February 10, 2011 Ravenswood Working Group Meeting Outcomes Background: The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project/South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study held the third meeting of the Ravenswood Working Group (Working Group) on Thursday, February 10, 2011 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Menlo Park Library in Menlo Park. The Working Group was convened to provide ongoing input and advice to the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Management Team (PM Team) on Phase 1 restoration and public access implementation, as well as flood protection planning. Meeting Attendance: Attachment 1 lists meeting participants. Meeting Materials: In advance of the meeting, Working Group members were provided with a meeting agenda. At the meeting, a summary of the prior meeting, a Phase 2: Preliminary Options for Future Actions document, a printout of the meeting slides and a South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project brochure were available. Most presentations are available on the SBSP Project website ( Substantive Meeting Outcomes: 1. Welcome, Self-Introductions and Agenda Review. John Bourgeois, Executive Project Manager, welcomed participants and led a round of self-introductions. Ariel Ambruster, facilitator with the Center for Collaborative Policy, reviewed the day's agenda. 2. Tracking Our Progress Project-wide John Bourgeois provided a status report on South Bay Salt Ponds management, funding and construction, with the aid of PowerPoint slides. In regards to funding, he reviewed the array of federal, mitigation/penalty, local and state bond funds that have supported the Project recently. These include $7.4 million in federal stimulus funds provided through NOAA to the Project and invasive Spartina control, as well as federal appropriations for construction and science. Local funding has been provided from the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Alameda County Flood

2 Control District. State funding has been provided through the State Coastal Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Board. Milestones in other parts of the Project outside Ravenswood include: Alviso Ponds near San Jose Continuing habitat evolution at the Island Ponds (Ponds A19, 20 and 21) breached in 2006; Completed construction of a 40-foot armored notch at Ponds A8, A5 and A7 to connect the 1400 acres of ponds to the Guadalupe River (Alviso Slough); the gates will be open in spring 2011 and scientists are conducting ongoing monitoring of methylmercury levels in water, sediment and sentinel species. The notch can be closed if mercury levels threaten to cause problems. Completed breaching and construction on 330-acre Pond A6 to restore the pond to tidal marsh; Opening of a 2.2-mile segment of the Bay Trail between Sunnyvale and Mountain View near Moffett Field; Design modifications underway at Ponds A16-17; Eden Landing ponds near Hayward Construction has begun on a 630-acre tidal marsh project at Ponds E8A/E9/E8X; Final design is underway for habitat reconfiguration on 230 acres at Pond E12; and Final designs are complete for a kayak launch, trail and viewing platforms. Public access construction would occur in Q: Is fish entrainment going to be an ongoing issue? A: Yes. Q: What is being done to protect against Eden Landing trails impacts? Are there baseline studies? Will there be any seasonal trail use? A: Lynne Trulio is investigating the impact of trails on shorebirds. She is not looking at every pond, but is investigating ponds at each complex, and selecting some with trails and some without. The loop trail at Eden Landing will be seasonal. 3. Tracking Our Progress at Ravenswood With the aid of PowerPoint slides, John Bourgeois, as well as Eric Mruz and Jennifer Heroux of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, presented an update on Phase 1 restoration and public access construction in Ravenswood. Pond SF2 Enhancement Project John Bourgeois said that Pond SF2 construction was completed in September, and was the first major Phase 1 project to finish. By installing 30 nesting islands, managers are seeking to answer the question of whether they can maximize pond habitat for species that use ponds, in order that a greater percentage of the Project's more than 15,000 acres can be restored to tidal wetlands. At a minimum, 50% of the project would be restored to wetlands, but creating dense pond habitat for pond species would allow for up to 90% of Ravenswood Working Group February 10, 2011 Meeting Summary 2

3 the area to return to wetlands. One third of the pond, at the back, is being kept dry for snowy plover habitat. The remaining two thirds now feature the islands in a very shallowly flooded pond that maximizes the ability of birds to forage for food. Q: Did construction create an elevation difference in Pond SF2? A: There is no difference -- the only change is the introduction of water. Pond SF2 Public Access Jennifer Heroux said this has been a banner year for public access, and most of it is in Ravenswood. SF2 public access includes the addition of a.7 mile trail, which allows for a 1.4-mile round-trip. It is ADA accessible. In addition, two viewing platforms were installed, with nine interpretive signs. Project managers worked with the Midpeninsula Open Space District on some public access features and in developing an area trail map of trails throughout the area. Bedwell Bayfront Park Interpretive Signs The Project has worked collaboratively with the City of Menlo Park and the Friends of Bedwell Bayfront Park to install interpretive signs on a vista point at the park, which is next to, but not within South Bay Salt Ponds property. Project managers hope to continue these collaborative relationships and develop similar partnerships with other area organizations and agencies. Interpretive Programs The Project in 2010 relaunched its docent program, offering a 20-hour training course to 13 individuals. As a result, eight docents are now offering programs based on their interests, such as photography and bike rides. At the Ravenswood area, there are 2 to 4 programs a month. A second docent training will be offered in summer In addition, an Earth Day event will be held at Ravenswood in partnership with Save The Bay and Caltrans. Save The Bay also holds regular volunteer work days at Ravenswood. 4. Shoreline Study Update Brenda Buxton of the State Coastal Conservancy gave an update on the Project's related effort, the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. In 2005, the State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Army Corps of Engineers joined to undertake a feasibility study. After four years, in September, a major milestone was reached with the production of an "existing conditions" report which looks at flood threat. The Army Corps of Engineers takes a cost-benefit approach, considering what the economic damage would be without additional flood protection. The report shows the highest damages would be in four areas: two areas near Palo Alto, the Google campus area by Moffett Field, and in Alviso. Because the process so far has been slow, partners are considering rescoping to create a more streamlined process. A study would be pursued at all four areas, or just Alviso. In early March, the issue will go before the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors. Ravenswood Working Group February 10, 2011 Meeting Summary 3

4 Q: What process did the Corps use to get these numbers? A: The Corps is in the process of doing a QA/QC of the data. Once that is complete, there will be more information available. Q: I'm concerned that this data be available for area planning, such as the San Jose water control plant plan. A: That project and the Shoreline Study have used each other's data, including climate change data. Q: How long before construction? A: Five years, if we are lucky. It would require a congressional appropriation. 5. Phase 2 Planning for Ravenswood John Bourgeois, with the aid of the document "Phase 2: Preliminary Options for Future Actions," introduced participants to the initial ideas that Project Managers developed for Phase 2 restoration, public access and science projects for the Ravenswood complex. Key guiding principles in choosing projects are avoiding actions that might increase flood risk, and selecting actions that would make progress toward the 50/50 tidal marsh-toponds vision described in the EIR. At this time, the Project is still developing data on Phase 1 actions, so it is too early to choose actions that move beyond the 50/50 vision. Phase 2, as currently envisioned, would include three across-the-board actions: A program to accept beneficial re-use of dredge materials to fill subsided areas and build upland transition habitat, which is beneficial for special status species; A pilot eelgrass or shellfish restoration in concert with the Subtidal Habitat Goals Project; and A public access and recreation study. Project Management Team preliminary ideas for Ravenswood include: 1. Ponds R5/S5 enhanced, perhaps with nesting islands, or for deep water species. 2. Tidal restoration of Pond R4, which would entail moving a levee back to protect R3. 3. Open the spur trail from Bedwell Bayfront Park, and enhance with interpretive panels. 4. Enhancing water management at R ponds. John Bourgeois explained that until levees are erected to protect the area south of R2 and R3, the Project cannot proceed with restoration of ponds R1-2. Managers will need to work with Menlo Park and Caltrans about the issue. Eric Mruz of the US Fish and Wildlife Service noted that the levee protecting R1 is the Project s hardest hit, requiring $50,000-$500,000 in maintenance annually. Restoring this pond to tidal marsh would therefore be attractive. Regarding Phase 2 applied studies, the following have been suggested: Use of dredge materials Invasive Spartina issues Ravenswood Working Group February 10, 2011 Meeting Summary 4

5 Subtidal habitat Public access/use Upland transition zones/ecotone Mercury and water quality monitoring Effect of trails on upland transition zones Increase in SF2 plover/shorebird nesting Eden Landing tidal prism changes Pond A1/A2W duck use California gull management study Working Group members were asked to provide their input on Phase 2, considering the following questions: What is your central concern in Phase 2? Does the proposed action(s) meet the test of the guiding principles? Is there anything the PM Team has missed? Working Group Ideas for Phase 2 Restoration/Enhancement Consider in your planning the impact of heavily used Bedwell Bayfront Park on R4 Plovers nest at R5/S5 on bumpy terrain. Don't add predator perches in this area. Hundreds of people are in this area on weekends and would be able to view species at R5/S5 Consider the relationship of the habitat area at Bedwell Bayfront Park with S5 Enhance R1/2 for waterfowl. R2 is now deep. R1/2: Add native rice plants or diving duck habitat. R2 is fairly barren. Native grasses could be added to levees for forage. Consider R4 and Greco Island connectivity for species R1: Install gravel bars, reduce silt hazard on pond bottoms R3: Perhaps manage it for plovers? Think of predator issues. Public Access Concern: When the levee is breached, preserve/enhance recreational sporting at R1/2. It is the only walk-in hunting spot now. A loop would not be needed. Enhance boat access points, such as the area near the PG&E substation. Consider an elevated boardwalk for the spur trail R1 provides a unique hunting opportunity for low-income communities, as it is close, accessible and quiet. Build a nonmotorized boat launch in Ravenswood Slough R4 spur trail there would be a public interest in heading that way. The area is heavily used by dog walkers. An elevated trail would help, and families would love it. Put in an observation point at the end of the spur trail R3: Perhaps better not to open orange trail? Or keep it a seasonal trail for plovers. Facebook property (listed as Sun Microsystems on the map) has off-leash dog use now. Is a dog plan needed? R2-1: Dogs are allowed in hunting season, so there is managed dog access. Perhaps this managed dog access could be used as a model -- managed dog access outside Ravenswood Working Group February 10, 2011 Meeting Summary 5

6 of hunting activities could be employed as a way to shift dog use and impacts to less sensitive areas. Science Levee between R3 and R4: Make the levee a low-crested berm or a horizontal levee that could be used to gather information about wave transmission for science. While it might be temporary, it would generate scientific data. Develop data for flood studies about wind and waves in the South Bay. There is uncertainty in regards to sea level rise. Miscellaneous Gravel mining fee for salt ponds? Questions/Discussion: Q: Will you review dredge spoils for to ensure that they don't introduce invasives? A: That's a good point. At Bair Island, we checked dredge materials for contaminants. Q: Could an R4 breach impact Greco Island? A: It would not be likely, but would be looked at in whatever environmental documentation would be needed. In response to discussion, Eric Mruz said he would like Pond R1/2 to continue to be open to hunting, with an accessible trail, after restoration. Q: Is R4 subsided? A: It is not very subsided. In response to ideas raised about a boat launch and a transitional levee, Project Senior Facilitator Mary Selkirk said this had raised new ideas about transitional uses. Public access could occur at Ponds R1/2 during the decade it would take for the area to restore to tidal marsh. The levee transition is also a great idea. One working group member noted that there used to be a trail allowing people to walk along R4. Kent Steffens of Menlo Park noted that the levee along Highway 84 would not only protect the freeway, but also the Belle Haven neighborhood, which is in the tidal floodplain. Any additional ideas or comments for Phase 2 in Ravenswood can be ed to John Bourgeois at jbourgeois@scc.ca.gov. 6. Science in the Salt Ponds South Bay Science Symposium 2011 The all-day symposium was held February 3 in Menlo Park. Videos and abstracts are available on the Salt Ponds website at symposium/. Ravenswood Working Group February 10, 2011 Meeting Summary 6

7 Western Snowy Plovers and the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Caitlin Robinson-Nilsen of the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory gave a PowerPoint presentation on this special status species, which is federally listed as threatened, and on efforts to increase its nesting and nesting success in the South Bay. A project to spread shells in nesting areas to camouflage young from predators did not produce successful results in 2010, after showing results the year before. She recommended that more area may need to be managed for plovers in the future, and that a California gull management plan be developed. Q: Did you see a difference in the survival of fledglings? A: No. One difference between the two years is that we had a lot more funding in 2009 for predator management. Predator management also benefits clapper rails and salt marsh harvest mice. Q: Have you considered the costs and benefits of a captive breeding program? A: It would be used as a last resort saving of a species, because it's very expensive. We did take one nest to the Monterey Bay Aquarium after it had been run over by construction equipment. That was very labor intensive. Q: Perhaps it might work better if it was something done locally. A: They are cute perhaps an "adopt a plover" program. California Gull: Challenges and Opportunities for Restoration Cheryl Strong of the US Fish and Wildlife Service gave a PowerPoint presentation on this native species, its appearance and dramatic population growth in the San Francisco Bay, and its impact on other waterbird species through nest predation. There have been 23,000 California gulls at Pond A6, and scientists will be watching to see where the birds go now that the pond has been breached. Comment: The A6 gulls did not nest north of the boardwalk and power lines. Q: What can be done beyond light hazing to deter gulls? A: A migratory bird permit would be needed before any actions could be taken beyond light hazing. Falcons have been successfully used at landfills, but that option would be horribly expensive. Q: Where would you guess the 23,000 A6 gulls will go? A: Possibly Pond A23. Or they might join existing nesting populations - the Coyote Hills gull population is right next to Eden Landing, and has expanded in the last couple of years. The Project will be considering gull issues in managing water levels at Pond A8. Q: Is it possible to decrease their reproductive capacity? If they take longer to prospect for nesting sites, reproduction might decrease. Ravenswood Working Group February 10, 2011 Meeting Summary 7

8 A: I am hoping at least some of the A6 gulls will join the Mono Lake colony. It's feasible. Another issue is that the good abatement on Newby Island might be reducing their landfill food supply and thereby increasing predation on chicks. Q: When are the breeding seasons? A: Gulls, plovers and avocets are the earliest species to breed. Q: What about the gulls massing at New Chicago Marsh? A: They are a different species, herring gulls. 7. Salt Ponds: Now & Looking Forward; Next Steps John Bourgeois summarized by noting that the Project is attempting to balance all of these issues. There has been a lot of success in restoring hundreds of acres. This is a tribute to all who have participated. The Project is trying to strike a good balance through its science program and adaptive management plan, which are gathering information on the many scientific uncertainties to inform the next phases of restoration. Ravenswood Working Group February 10, 2011 Meeting Summary 8

9 Attachment 1: Ravenswood WG February 10, 2011 Meeting Attendance Name Organization/Affiliation Matt Brennan ESA PWA Lynn Chiapella Associated with CCCR Darcie Collins Save The Bay Carin High CCCR Jane Lavelle SFPUC Libby Lucas CNPS Ryan Mayfield City of San Jose Eileen McLaughlin CCCR Anne Moser Friends of Bedwell Bayfront Park Stacy Moskal USGS/San Jose State University Raven Works Field Sports Ministry & LaRue Ragan Jane Leach Memorial Fund AC Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Ana Ruiz District Kent Steffens City of Menlo Park Laura Wainer Save The Bay Ravenswood Working Group February 10, 2011 Meeting Summary 9