2009 Annual Monitoring Report (pdf 11.9MB) - Bolsa Chica ...

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportLIST OF APPENDICESAppendix 1-A. 2009 Field Survey DatesAppendix 1-B. Sampling Location CoordinatesAppendix 1-C. Cordgrass Monitoring PhotosAppendix 1-D. List of All Fish Species ObservedAppendix 1-E. Avian GuildsAppendix 1-F. Avian Abundance by Zone in 2009Appendix 1-G. Final Report Western Snowy plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009Appendix 2-A. Monthly Tide Plots 2009Appendix 2-B. Bolsa Beach Profile PlotsAppendix 2-C. MSL Beach WidthAppendix 2-D. Sediment Volume DataAppendix 2-E. MSL Beach Width MeasurementsAppendix 2-F. US Army Corps Beach Width MeasurementsMerkel & Associates, Inc.iii

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reporteelgrass and cordgrass habitat in the FTB, and the expansion of non-native weeds on the aviannesting sites.A key objective of the restoration project was the enhancement of coastal salt marsh, a habitatcritical for nesting by the state endangered Belding’s Savannah sparrows (Passerculussandwichensis beldingi). Prior to restoration, the marsh vegetation on site was non tidal andlimited in its functionality as a true coastal salt marsh. Introduction of tidal influence to theMTBs from the FTB was intended to improve the quality of the existing salt marsh vegetationand to offset losses of salt marsh resulting from the creation of the FTB.By mid-2009, inundation conditions in the MTBs had moved closer to those envisioned by theoriginal restoration design. The west MTB had been open to tidal influence from the FTB March2008, so that by 2009 coastal salt marsh habitat at the lowest elevations in the basin experiencedprolonged or permanent inundation periods. As anticipated, the marsh plants were unable towithstand this change at the lower elevations and died, and those areas converted to open waterand mudflat. A similar conversion of low-lying salt marsh to open water occurred in the centraland east MTBs as a result of their inundation by ponded seawater that seeped in through theclosed water control structures. A site-wide decrease in coastal salt marsh coverage from 92.0hectares (ha) in 2008 to 76.5 ha in 2009 is attributable primarily to this transition effect.The MTB design process anticipated the observed transition from broad expanses of isolated,non-tidal pickleweed to a more functional tidal marsh, with a mix of open water channels,intertidal mudflat, and coastal salt marsh. When evaluating the functionality of the MTB marshin light of the possible shortfall of coastal salt marsh coverage, it is important to recall that priorto restoration all marsh vegetation on site was non tidal and limited in its functionality as habitat,with few of the ecological elements of a healthy salt marsh such as marine fish and invertebratecommunities. Introduction of tidal influence to the MTBs from the FTB was intended to convertthe relictual marsh to a true coastal salt marsh, with open water channels, intertidal mudflats, andregularly inundated marsh. This transition has been documented to be well underway by thepresent monitoring work. Additionally, a central goal of the MTB creation was to provide amplenesting habitat for Belding’s Savannah sparrow. The use of the MTBs by breeding Belding’sSavannah sparrows more than doubled between 2008 and 2009, suggesting that the new balanceof habitats in the MTBs is attractive to them for nesting, likely providing both increased vigor ofremaining pickleweed and greater protection of nests from terrestrial predators.From a habitat standpoint, it is critical that the FTB inlet maintenance program be fine-tuned toalleviate tidal muting, allowing the FTB to experience low tides on a regular basis. This wouldallow the central and east MTBs to be opened up to tidal influence from the FTB, setting inmotion the process of physical and biological transition described above in the west MTB andallowing the restoration site to progress to a mature state.Another habitat goal of the restoration was the establishment of eelgrass in the FTB. The 2007transplant was successful, more than doubling in size after one year (to 0.8 ha [2.0 acres] in June2008), and reaching 13.1 ha (35.5 acres) in June 2009. The eelgrass began flowering shortlyafter transplant, which was likely the source of its spread to areas nearly a kilometer from thetransplant sites. The establishment of eelgrass in the FTB enhances the ecological value of theBolsa Chica Lowlands complex. Eelgrass plays many important roles in coastal bays andestuaries. It clarifies water through sediment trapping and stabilization. It also provides theMerkel & Associates, Inc. 2

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportbenefits of nutrient transformation and water oxygenation. Eelgrass serves as a primary producerin a detrital-based food-web, and is further directly grazed upon by invertebrates, fish, and birds,thus contributing to ecosystem health at multiple trophic levels. Additionally, it providesphysical structure as a habitat, and supports epiphytic plants and animals that in turn are grazedupon by other invertebrates, fish, and birds. It is also a nursery area for finfish and shellfish, bothresident species and oceanic species that enter the estuaries to breed or spawn. Besidesproviding important habitat for fish, eelgrass is also considered an important food resource formigratory birds during critical life stages, including migratory periods. In the coming yearseelgrass will likely expand to form meadows in the subtidal waters of the mid and lower FTB,and may form patchy or seasonal beds in the northern FTB where water clarity is generallyreduced.Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) and eelgrass (Zostera marina) were transplanted throughout theFTB in August 2007. By June 2009, the eelgrass had expanded to cover 13.1 ha (35.5 acre) andis expected to expand further in the coming years. Approximately 366 m 2 (0.04 ha) of cordgrasshad become established in the FTB two years post-transplant. It is expected that, in time, thecordgrass will expand to form continuous patches suitable as habitat for light-footed clapper rails(Rallus longirostris levipes) provided that appropriate tidal conditions can be achieved throughregular maintenance of the basin inlet. A similar transplant at Batiquitos Lagoon beganexpanding four to six years post-transplant.FISH COMMUNITYFish community sampling was conducted in January, April, and July 2009 in the Full TidalBasin, Muted Pocket Marsh, and the Muted Tidal Basins. Sampling equipment included an ottertrawl, purse seine, and beach seines as appropriate for the station depth and accessibility.Captured fish were identified, counted, measured, and weighed. The 2009 monitoring markedthe end of the two years of quarterly sampling, which assessed the fish community two and threeyears post-restoration.The 2009 monitoring documented the rapidly maturing fish community in the FTB. A total of47 fish species was captured over that time period, representing the full spectrum of trophiclevels, from small juvenile schooling fish to adult predatory species. The northern portion of thebasin is similar to other back bay environments, with a soft mud bottom, limited vegetation, andhigher summer water temperatures. The northern FTB fish community is dominated by sharksand rays, and schooling topsmelt (Atherinops affinis). The southern portion of the basin isincreasingly vegetated with eelgrass and has developed a fish community typical of wellcirculatedwaters and structured habitats, with species such as croaker, surfperch, pipefish, andkelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus). Topsmelt and California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) are alsoabundant in the southern region of the basin.The creation of the FTB has increased the availability of important bay habitat, improvingsouthern California fisheries resources. Nearly every fish species captured was represented byjuvenile size classes (and usually adults as well), demonstrating the role of the basin as nurseryhabitat for spawning or post-larval settlement. The type and size of fish captured also reflect theexpanding eelgrass meadows, which increase the complexity of the system by supportingresident fish species, providing egg-laying substrate and protection for breeding species, andforming the basis of detritus-based and grazing-based food webs. The new marine life supportedby the FTB also benefits offshore marine communities as some species leave the basin, andMerkel & Associates, Inc. 3

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportsupports other ecological communities within the system through consumption by avian andmammalian consumers.Although twenty-five bird species were documented foraging for fish in the FTB during aviansurveys, terns were rarely seen foraging there, though there are well-established nesting colonieson or near the basin. It is notable that all species of anchovy (Engraulidae), an important preygroup for terns, were uncommon in or absent from the FTB samples. Pipefish and juveniletopsmelt and grunion may provide an alternative food resource for terns, though offshore watersor Inner Bolsa Bay may provide preferred foraging habitat.In the MTBs, restricted tidal influence and periodic water quality extremes limited the fishcommunity to eleven relatively hardy species in 2009. However, the abundance of a few speciesof small fish was reflected in the regular foraging use of these basins by wading marsh birds andsome terns. The diversity and distribution of fish will increase once all three basins are openeddirectly to the FTB through the tide gates, allowing for more stable water quality, regular tidalflushing, and exchange of fish between the MTBs and FTB.The Muted Pocket Marsh (not hydrologically connected to the FTB of Bolsa Chica) continued tobe a rich source of small fish for the many piscivorous birds that use the marsh, though diversityis low, with a total of ten species captured during all sampling. It is anticipated that futuresampling events may document a few additional species tolerant of lower salinities and limitedtidal flushing, however the muted tidal conditions, the water control structure, and the distancefrom the ocean will limit the diversity and size of fish that ultimately make up the community ofthe marsh.BENTHIC COMMUNITYThe Monitoring Plan does not call for benthic monitoring in Year 3 of the program. The nextmonitoring event will occur in Year 5.WATER QUALITYThe Monitoring Plan does not call for water quality monitoring in Year 3 of the program. Thenext monitoring event will occur in Year 5.AVIAN COMMUNITYSaturation surveys of the avian community were conducted in February, April, June, and August2009 and marked the end of the two years of bi-monthly sampling, which documented avianusage of the restoration site two and three years post-restoration.In 2009, species richness ranged from 64 to 88 species per survey and was highest duringFebruary and April. A total of 121 species was observed in 2009, for a grand total of 166 speciesobserved since the start of the monitoring period (twelve surveys from October 2007 to August2009). Avian abundance was fairly consistent for each survey period with the exception of theJune survey, when counts were notably lower. This was due to the seasonal absence of manyshorebirds and wintering ducks.Throughout most of the year western sandpiper (Calidris mauri) was the most common species,with shorebirds the most abundant guild overall. This changed in June when most of theshorebirds had left Bolsa Chica for their breeding grounds and birds that nest in the area becameMerkel & Associates, Inc. 4

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportthe dominant species. These species were mostly the aerial fish foragers (primarily terns). Thesecond most abundant guild for the year was upland birds, which had high counts of Belding’sSavannah sparrow as well as foraging swallows.The newly created mudflats in the Full Tidal Basin (FTB) were the most utilized habitat type.The heavy usage of the mudflats was strongly linked to the low tide condition during which thesurveys were conducted. Shorebirds foraged on the intertidal mudflats and many terns andpelicans used the area for resting. When the mudflats are covered at higher tides, the birds moveto other habitats not in the FTB to loaf and forage, such at the Seasonal Ponds or Muted TidalBasins (MTBs).In 2009 the FTB was utilized by 41% of all birds observed, representing 71 species. The FutureFull Tidal Basin (FFTB) had the highest number of species (105 species), consisting mainly ofupland birds, shorebirds, and dabbling ducks. The most abundant upland bird was Belding’sSavannah sparrow, which utilized the pickleweed-dominated salt marsh. The Seasonal Pondsand MTBs were important habitat for dabbling ducks, shorebirds, and upland birds. The MutedPocket Marsh was highly utilized by shorebirds and dabbling ducks and had even more birds perhectare than the FTB.Surveys for the state endangered Belding's Savannah sparrow were performed in February andMarch 2009. A total of 270 and 268 territories were recorded in February and March of 2009,respectively. This is an increase from 177 territories in April of 2008 and 208 territories in May2008 but still lower that the high of 361 territories in April 2007. Territories appeared to berelatively evenly dispersed throughout areas where pickleweed-dominated salt marsh occurred,however there were some cases where territories were clustered close together, while other areasthat appeared ideal were unoccupied. Using the area of salt marsh available and the maximumnumber of territories recorded, the average territory size was estimated to be 1,405m 2 , muchlarger than the average territory size noted in the available literature (304 m 2 to 626 m 2 ). Whilethe available habitat would suggest low-density occupancy by Belding’s Savannah sparrow, thefragmented nature of the much of the salt marsh (expansive salt panne with narrow fringing saltmarsh) results in considerable area that is unsuitable for breeding use. As the MTB salt marshmoves toward an equilibrium distribution, it is expected that more of this area will becomesuitable and will be occupied by the sparrows.The MTBs showed the largest increase in number of territories. The flooding of much of thepickleweed in the MTBs reduced the overall amount of pickleweed available, but improved thequality of the remaining pickleweed habitat. This has resulted in improved foraging conditionsand improved breeding habitat for the Belding’s Savannah sparrow.The state and federally endangered California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) nestedprimarily on South Tern Island (STI) and Nest Site 1 (NS1), although one tern nested on NestSite 3 (NS3). This was the first time a least tern had used this nest site. The least terns did notutilize North Tern Island (NTI) or Nest Site 2 (NS2). From an estimated number of 285 pairs, atotal 317 nests were observed, a 30% increase over 2008. Estimated fledgling success for the2009 season ranged from 265-363 fledglings for a rate of 0.83 to 1.15 fledglings per nest. Thiscan be compared to 100-150 fledglings (0.41 to 0.62 fledglings per nest) in 2008 and 15fledglings (0.07 fledglings per nest) in 2007.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 5

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportCalifornia least tern nest predation was low, with egg predation occurring at 15 nests. Thirtyfivenests were abandoned prior to hatching. This high abandonment of nests occurred mainlyon STI when 28 nests were abandoned. The gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica), neverobserved at Bolsa Chica prior to this year, was responsible for the loss of at least three least ternchicks. It is also estimated that 37 least tern nests were subsequently lost through trampling bythe larger terns and skimmers on NS1 where overcrowding has become a huge problem.The federally threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) nested onSTI, NTI, NS1, NS2, NS3, and a number of cells within the Seasonal Ponds, FFTB, and MTBs,with a total of 70 nests. Estimated fledgling success for the 2009 season ranged from 42 to 70fledglings with a rate of 0.60 to 1.00 fledglings per nest. These numbers are slightly lower thanin 2008 but are within the fluctuations normally seen from year to year. Predation of nests isvery low for the snowy plover due to the use of the mini-exclosure (a wire cage placed over thenest); however, seven nests were abandoned. Predation of snowy plover chicks was high. It issuspected that the greatest chick loss on NS1 was due to trampling by larger birds (terns andskimmers). It is also estimated that 18 plover chicks were taken by the gull-billed tern.INLET FLOOD SHOALFollowing the development of a large shoal in the FTB inlet, a maintenance dredging event wasundertaken from January to April 2009. Monitoring of the flood shoal in 2009 therefore focusedon documentation of the amount of sand removed by the dredging and an examination of the rateat which the shoal began to reform in the months following the dredge completion.The distribution of accreted sand in the FTB inlet flood shoal was assessed by bathymetricsurvey in late December 2008 (pre-dredge), April 2009 (post-dredge), May 2009, July 2009, andJanuary 2010. The pre- and post-dredge surveys documented that from January 8 to April 14,2009, approximately 180,045 m 3 of sand was pumped from the flood shoal to the beach south ofthe inlet. Over a 30-day period from April to May 2009, sand was re-deposited into the basin ata low rate, with a net of 2,078 m 3 accreted. The observed low rate of accretion immediatelyfollowing dredging was unexpected and may have been due to limited coastal littoral transport ofsand eroded from the winter condition beach face. Following this period, from May to the end ofthe year, the accretion rate rose back to rates similar to those documented in the first year afterthe basin was opened. A net of 16,157 m 3 accreted from May to July 2009 (6,463 m 3 /month),and a net of 42,549 m 3 accreted from July 2009 to January 2010 (7,092 m 3 /month). Therelatively high rate of accretion and the extent of penetration of the shoal into the FTB suggeststhat the development of a deeper maintenance basin within the southerly portion of the FTBwould be appropriate. This would both increase the time between dredging events and improvesand removal efficiencies due to deeper smaller dredging footprints.TIDAL MONITORINGAccretion of sand within the flood shoal of the FTB continues to be the most important factorcausing tidal lag and muting. Tidal monitoring provides a means of tracking the lag and mutingand providing information necessary to determine the need for maintenance dredging to ensureproper physical and ecological system functioning.Tidal monitoring began in the FTB in December 2006 and was nearly continuous throughout2009. Analysis of the 2009 data found that tidal lag and muting are not similar among tidalevents. Average tidal lag was greatest during lower low tides (94 minutes), almost negligibleMerkel & Associates, Inc. 6

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportduring higher high tides (12 minutes), and intermediate for higher low tides (36 minutes) andlower high tides (25 minutes). The maximum observed lag for 2009 was 186 minutes observedduring a lower low tide on January 9, 2009.Tidal muting was also most significant during lower low tides. Average tidal muting (mean ± 1SE) in 2009 during lower low tides was 0.26 ± 0.01 m. Average tidal muting was much lowerduring higher low tides (0.06 ± .003 m), and less than 0.01 m during both lower high tides andhigher high tides. The maximum observed muting for 2009 was 0.91 m at the lower low tide onJanuary 10, 2009.In 2008 tidal muting in the FTB had become pronounced as a result of flood shoal formation inthe inlet. This meant that the central Muted Tidal Basins (CMTB) and east Muted Tidal Basins(EMTB) were not able to function. Maintenance dredging was undertaken from January to April2009 to alleviate this condition. The dredging achieved the goal of reducing tidal lag andmuting. This improved the tidal conditions for habitat values and the functioning of the mutedtidal basins, though the lag and muting were not restored to levels observed after the initialopening of the FTB in 2006. Following the dredging, the range was restored to between 1.68 mand 1.88 m based on the April 2009 full moon and new moon spring tides, respectively. Themaximum muting during the April 2009 full moon and new moon spring tides was 0.32 m and0.42 m, respectively. The inability of the FTB to obtain the greater range and lower mutingobserved post-construction was likely due to continued restriction in the FTB inlet channel. Theinlet channel was not dredged in 2009.Although muting was improved immediately following the dredging, the FTB lower low waterlevels were still high enough to significantly impact the functioning of the MTBs. The waterlevels in the FTB were only occasionally low enough to allow drainage of the EMTB in 2009,had it been open. The higher operating range of the CMTB means that it could have beenoperated in 2009, though with significant limitation. Had this basin been open in 2009, tidalwater could have been occasionally allowed in with the knowledge that it would drain back outduring the monthly spring tide series when the FTB was below the operating range of theCMTB. The operating range of the WMTB was well above the low spring tide elevations of theFTB throughout 2009 and has been since the opening of the FTB. The basin was open andfunctioning throughout 2009 with near daily fluctuations in water levels. As tidal mutingincreased post-dredge within the FTB, the difference in water elevations between the FTB andWMTB became restricted such that the WMTB did not empty efficiently. This meant that theWMTB continued to rise and fall with changing tides, but did so with a decreased tidal range.During preliminary engineering, tidal predictions were based on a theoretical average spring tidalcondition, not the maximum spring tide condition. Because of the high importance of the lowtide muting and lag to the drain-fill hydraulics of the MTBs, these maximum drain-outconditions are of key interest as they pertain to proper functioning of the MTBs. Although theFTB would still be considered fully tidal in 2009, the diminishing drainage from the basincontinued to restrict or prevent regular drainage from the MTBs. Additionally, Freeman Creek,which is key to site-wide drainage of accumulated rainfall out to the FTB, operates by gravity aswell. The FTB muting continued to keep FTB waters at elevations too high for Freeman Creekto drain by gravity. Mobile pumps had to be used to drain water from Freeman Creek to the FTBduring wet spring months in 2009. As a result of the shoal-associated muting and its controllingMerkel & Associates, Inc. 7

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportinfluence on the functioning of the MTBs and Freeman Creek, along with other habitat concerns,maintenance dredging will be warranted as soon as winter 2010-2011.BEACH MONITORINGBeach profile data were obtained in May and October 2009 and compared to historic data.Historically, the beaches along the Bolsa Chica study area have benefited as the downdriftrecipient of the Surfside-Sunset nourishment material. During the 34-year period between 1963and 1997, the beaches advanced at four of the five historical transects included in the BolsaChica beach monitoring program. The Huntington Cliffs site was the one exception. The volumeof sand above MSL increased in parallel to the beach width changes during the period. Theshorezone volumes in the study area, which incorporate the sediment changes further offshore,increased at all of the sites.During the four-year period encompassing the last year of the construction of the Bolsa ChicaLowlands Restoration Project and the first three years post-restoration (October 2005 to October2009), the shoreline tended to advance north of the entrance channel, and retreat or remain stablesouth of the entrance. The subaerial volume changes were similar to the beach width changes,with the primary exception being gains immediately south of the entrance channel. These gains(which were largely above the MSL shoreline), may be explained by the sediment placed at thislocation in late-2008. It is not possible to quantitatively assess shorezone volume changes duringthe recent four-year period (the October 2005 profile does not extend below the waterline).However, a trend of shorezone volume loss prevailed in the central portion of the study areabetween January 2007 and May 2008, followed by a trend of increasing volumes throughOctober 2009. This may be attributable dispersal and redistribution of the ebb bar and naturalerosion between Surfside-Sunset nourishment intervals.Approximately 198,000 m 3 of sediment was deposited in the lagoon during the 17-month periodbetween August 2006 and January 2008 (equivalent to approximately 140,000 m 3 /y).Sedimentation was reduced substantially during the second year (11-month period betweenJanuary 2008 to December 2008) to approximately 36,000 m 3 or 39,000 m 3 /y. During the 10-month period following the 2009 maintenance dredging operations, approximately 43,000 m 3 ofsediment was deposited within the FTB (April 2009 to January 2010; equivalent toapproximately 52,000 m 3 /y). It is possible that the high shoaling rate during the first 17-monthperiod was a transient effect attributable to the initial stabilization of the inlet and adjacentbeaches. The reduced shoaling rate during the second year is likely attributable to a reducedtidal prism due to high initial shoaling rates and the stabilization of the local sediment sources(nourished beaches and ebb bar). The shoaling rate following the first maintenance dredgingoperation (52,000 m 3 /y) was significantly lower than the rate that prevailed following the initialopening of the FTB. It is cautioned, however, that this annualized rate does not include a fullwinter season as part of the 10-month period and may be artificially low.The shoaling rate measured during the initial 17-month period was on the same order ofmagnitude as the alongshore sediment transport rates developed as part of the CCSTWS-OCsediment budgets (estimated to range from 108,000 m 3 /y to 125,000 m 3 /y). In the event thattrapping rates detected during the initial post-opening are not transitory, these rates are of asignificant magnitude to be of major concern to longshore transport in the littoral cell. If leftunchecked and unmanaged, the primary implication of a substantial reduction of the longshoresediment supply is shoreline erosion downdrift of the entrance channel. The Bolsa Chica project,Merkel & Associates, Inc. 8

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reporthowever, incorporates two sand management measures to actively address the potential fordowndrift erosion by eliminating or substantially reducing the net long-term loss of sanddowncoast. The ebb bar located offshore was pre-filled and supplemental sand was placed asbeach nourishment adjacent to the channel at the time of construction to compensate foranticipated short-term sediment losses from the littoral budget. In addition, the long-term projectsediment management plan provides for periodic down-coast beach nourishment using sedimentderived from the FTB during maintenance dredging operations (the first such operation wasconducted in early 2009). This bypassing operation essentially restores the sediment lost fromthe littoral budget to the downdrift beaches over the long-term. Taken together, these measuresare anticipated to maintain the historical supply of sediment to the beaches located south of theentrance channel. Nevertheless, particular vigilance is warranted in monitoring the flood shoalaccumulation rates following the recent dredging activities to understand if the highsedimentation rates documented during the first year were transitory or will be repeated.MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND DREDGING TRIGGERSParameters of tidal muting, beach width, loss of subtidal habitat, closure risk, muted tidal basinfunction, and water quality are considered when determining when dredging should beperformed. Some of these parameters have pre-established triggers including tidal muting, beachwidth, and loss of subtidal habitat. Other parameters do not presently have established criteriafor triggering a dredging event. In reviewing the established dredging triggers, it is clear thatmost of the triggers may never be met except under extreme circumstances. It is more likely thatmaintenance dredging will be required to address an intrinsic system need related to thefunctionality of the MTB tidal control structures and Freeman Creek.By late 2008 this functionality was impaired by the considerable tidal muting in the system andthe first maintenance dredging event was conducted in early 2009. From January 8 to April 14,2009 (96 days of dredging), approximately 180,045 m 3 of sand was pumped from themaintenance basin to the beach south of the inlet, creating approximately 110 m of beach. Thetotal cost of the first maintenance dredging events was approximately $3.2 million, which wasfunded by the restoration project maintenance account and Montrose settlement funds. Followingcompletion of the dredging, tidal muting was temporarily improved, however by November 2009the conditions that triggered the dredging had begun to develop again and plans were begun for amore extensive second dredge event in 2011.RECOMMENDATIONSRecommendations made in the following annual report are summarized below.Vegetation• Continue collection of aerial imagery each year (rather than in Years 2, 5, and 10 only) totrack changes in water levels, site conditions, and habitat development.• Initiate prompt iceplant eradication program on Rabbit Island to protect dwindling populationof the rare plant coast woolly heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata).• Consider control of nest site vegetation through treatment of large areas with salt water byway of a portable irrigation system.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 9

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report• Consider adding plant diversity to the restoration area through appropriate transplants fromother areas such as Upper Newport Bay or Inner Bolsa Bay.• Consider opportunities for introduction of salt marsh bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus)from Upper Newport Bay into areas of Freeman Creek, the Seasonal Ponds, and the MutedTidal Basins, where seasonally lowered salinities would promote seed germination.Avian• Continue modified avian monitoring schedule, expanding the monthly Year 5 monitoring toinstead conduct the surveys every other month, distributed over a period of two years(monitoring Years 5 and 6).• Explore more aggressive weed control techniques per the USFWS Monitoring Plan guidelinethat if vegetative cover on the Nest Sites exceeds 5%, vegetation must be removed beforeMarch of each year.Tidal Monitoring• Make the tidal muting trigger meaningful by revising the trigger to evaluate the FTB springlow tides rather than the average low tide elevations (Mean Low Water).Maintenance Dredging• Deepen the maintenance basin to the permitted depth of the final engineering design duringthe next dredge event.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 10

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportBOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTMonitoring ProgramAnnual Report - 2009INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDThe Bolsa Chica Lowlands are located in Orange County, California, between Bolsa Chica Mesaon the northwest and Huntington Beach on the southeast (Figure 0-1). In 1996, eight state andfederal agencies entered into an agreement to conduct wetland acquisition and restoration at theLowlands. Following project planning, land purchase, restoration design, permit acquisition, andpublication of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report,restoration construction began on October 6, 2004. The project involved the creation of a FullTidal Basin (FTB) and restoration of Muted Tidal Basins (MTB) by constructing an ocean inletnorth of Huntington Mesa.To create the FTB, approximately 1.57 million m 3 of material were excavated from within theBolsa Chica Lowlands to create a basin of a general depth of –1m NAVD, bounded by intertidalflats. The excavated sand was distributed on the adjacent beaches from March to June 2006(102,500 m 3 , divided evenly to the north and south of the future inlet) as well as placed offshorefrom November 2005 to May 2006 to form an ebb bar (929,326 m 3 ) outside of the future inlet.Approximately 531,354 m 3 of material was placed to form the berms that bound the FTB basinand three nesting areas. Remaining material was hauled off-site. Jetties were constructed toform the ocean inlet to the FTB from March through June of 2006.The FTB was opened to the ocean on August 24, 2006. The basin was designed to support 71.0hectares (ha) (175.5 acres) of non-wetland waters, 49.6 ha (122.6 acres) of tidal flats, and 7.7 ha(19.1 acres) of pickleweed – a component of salt marsh habitat. In order to keep the inlet open,maintenance dredging is anticipated to be required every two to three years, with dredged sand tobe placed on down-coast beaches.Water control structures and culverts were installed through the berm to allow regular but mutedtidal influence from the FTB to each of three MTBs (Figure 0-1), to support 51.1 ha (126.3acres) of salt marsh habitat, and create 17.1 ha (42.3 acres) of tidal flats, 12.3 ha (30.5 acres) ofcordgrass habitat, and 0.7 ha (1.4 acres) of non-wetland waters. The west MTB was opened totidal influence from the FTB through its water control structure in March 2008, while the centraland east basins remained closed in 2009 while additional oil spill and flood control protectionswere put into place. The restoration project involved no changes to the Future Full Tidal Basinor the Seasonal Ponds, areas that are currently an active oil production field (Figure 0-1).The restoration project also returned muted tidal influence to the Muted Pocket Marsh (MPM),north of Wintersberg Channel (Figure 0-1). The MPM is not hydrologically connected to theFTB of Bolsa Chica, rather it receives muted tidal influence through a water control structurethat was installed connecting it to outer Bolsa Bay, through Huntington Harbour, whichultimately opens to the ocean over 6.5 km (4 miles) to the northwest.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 11

Santa BarbaraLos AngelesOuterBolsaBayMutedPocket MarshWestWCSEast Garden Grove Wintersburg ChannelMuted Tidal BasinsHuntington BeachMAPAREAHUNTINGTON BEACHSan DiegoRabbitIslandInnerBolsa BayNorthTernIslandNest Site 1CentralWCSFull Tidal BasinEastWCSNestSite 2FreemanWCSFreeman CreekFuture Full TidalPACIFIC OCEANSouthTernIslandNestSite 3Flood ShoalMaintenanceAreaSeasonal PondsWest Muted Tidal BasinCentral Muted Tidal BasinEast Muted Tidal BasinMonitoring Program Study Boundary0 100 200 400 600 800MetersOceanInletSite locator and vicinity mapBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 0-1Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report2009 SITE CONDITIONSThe 2009 monitoring year began with the first maintenance dredging event. By the end of 2008,the anticipated flood shoal in the FTB inlet had reached its greatest extent, and the reduction oftidal range in the basin had progressed as well. During low oceanic tides, the blockage of theinlet by the shoal prevented the FTB from fully draining out as it had immediately followingconstruction. This resulted in a muting of low tides in the basin, increasing the daily durations oftidal inundation in the FTB. This tidal muting could be seen in the vegetation communities,which were effectively pushed up to higher elevations. It also affected the physical functioningof the system, which relies on low tides in the FTB to adequately gravity drain the MTBs,Freeman Creek, and the Seasonal Ponds. These conditions were anticipated as part of the projectdesign and were the triggers that indicated that maintenance dredging in 2009 was warranted.Due to the tidal muting in the FTB, the west MTB continued to be the only basin open to tidalinfluence from the FTB, with the central and east remaining closed in 2009. Seasonal rains, slowseepage through the control structures, and designed gravitational flow from the west to centralMTB filled the low lying areas of all three of the basins, creating open water in areas that werepreviously dry salt panne.The storm events early in the year also raised the water level in Freeman Creek and the SeasonalPonds, creating large expanses of open water during many of the bird surveys. Because thewater control structures designed to drain Freeman Creek and Seasonal Ponds to the FTB wereclosed in 2008 while additional oil spill protections were put in place, water was pumped out ofthe creek and some ponds in May 08 to lower the water level in the ponds to make more foraginghabitat available for western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus).MONITORING PROGRAMThe follow-up monitoring of the restoration generally conforms to the Bolsa Chica LowlandRestoration Project Biological Monitoring and Follow-up Plan prepared by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) in 2001 (Monitoring Plan)(USFWS 2001a). Responsibility forimplementation of the plan before and during construction was held by the USFWS. Long-termresponsibility for implementation of the Monitoring Plan was assumed post-construction by theCalifornia State Lands Commission, with a particular commitment to flood shoal maintenanceand breeding habitats for listed species, particularly the least tern, snowy plover, and Belding’sSavannah sparrow. A maintenance endowment was established when the project began in 1997and will be used to conduct the monitoring and flood shoal maintenance.The Monitoring Plan notes that the purpose of the monitoring program is to document the habitatimprovements for fish and wildlife, the success of revegetation efforts, and the use of the site byendangered species. Additional monitoring elements in the Monitoring Plan are intended toensure that the inlet is properly maintained, constructed nesting areas have adequatemaintenance, the rare plant coast woolly heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata) is protectedthrough weed control and seed introduction, and that construction impacts to Belding’s Savannahsparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) are minimized and offset through postconstructionimprovements to marsh habitat.The Monitoring Plan identifies the ecological monitoring objectives as follows:Merkel & Associates, Inc. 13

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report• Facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the restoration to provide habitat for fish andwildlife.• Document changes in the ecology of the wetlands environment over time.• Provide timely identification of any problems with the physical, or biologicaldevelopment of the restored area.• Assist in providing a technical basis for resource management of the restored wetland bydocumenting maintenance needs and enhancement opportunities.The Monitoring Plan calls for most biological monitoring to be conducted during the 2nd, 5th,and 10th years after completion of construction. Some additional monitoring will be conductedas warranted by conditions observed at the site or the need for additional data. State andfederally listed avian species will be monitored every year. Physical monitoring will beconducted in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10, and during interim years as needed to investigate thefunctioning of the system.Immediately west of the Lowlands is Inner Bolsa Bay, which was established as an EcologicalReserve in 1973 to be managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (Figure0-1). On August 24, 2006, the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project acreage and the MutedPocket Marsh were incorporated into the Ecological Reserve by agreement of the State LandsCommission and CDFG. This monitoring program study boundary includes only the restoredLowlands and Muted Pocket Marsh, not Bolsa Bay, with the exception that California least tern(Sternula antillarum browni) and western snowy plover monitoring was conducted throughoutthe Ecological Reserve (Restoration Area and Inner Bolsa Bay).The Beach Monitoring for this program conforms to the Bolsa Chica Lowlands RestorationProject Beach Monitoring Plan (USFWS 2001b). The Beach Monitoring Plan definesmonitoring activities and analyses that are expected to assure restoration project-related adverseimpacts to area beaches are mitigated.The State Lands Commission has contracted Merkel & Associates, Inc. (M&A) and its team toimplement the Biological and Beach Monitoring Plans. The monitoring team includes Merkel &Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Coastal Frontiers, and Chambers Group, Inc. The FTBwas opened to the ocean on August 24, 2006, with additional remedial construction activitiescontinuing to address various shoreline stabilization issues. Contracting was not in place toinitiate immediate monitoring until late 2006. However the Year 2 biological monitoring wasinitiated on schedule in Fall 2007. The annual monitoring reports will be prepared by calendaryear but will include data collected by monitoring year, which is based on a schedule starting inOctober 2006. Therefore the first monitoring report included all data collected from November2006 through December 2007, capturing all monitoring conducted under Year 1 of themonitoring program (October 2006 to September 2007), as well as the first quarter of Year 2(October to December 2007) (M&A 2008a). The second monitoring report included all datacollected from January to December 2008, capturing the last three quarters of Year 2 (throughSeptember 2008) and the first quarter of Year 3 (October to December 2008). This presentreport includes all data collected from January to December 2009, capturing the last threequarters of Year 3 (through September 2009) and the first quarter of Year 4 (October toDecember 2009). A schedule of monitoring activities and reporting is presented for clarification(Figure 0-2).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 14

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportFigure 0-2. Schedule of Bolsa Chica monitoring activities. (Breaks in task numbering reflect analytical or administrative tasks that have not beenshown)2006 2007 2008 2009TASK A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N DMonitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 3MY 4COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION1.0. Ecological Monitoring Program1.1. Water Quality1.2. Soils1.3. Vegetation/Habitat MappingAerial Photogrammetry and GeoreferencingVegetation Mapping and GroundtruthingVegetation Transect MonitoringEelgrass MonitoringCordgrass Monitoring1.4. Fisheries1.5. Benthos1.6. AvianGeneral Avian SurveysSpecies of Special ConcernCalifornia Least Tern MonitoringWestern Snowy Plover MonitoringBelding's Savannah Sparrow Monitoring2.0. Physical Monitoring Program2.1. Inlet Bathymetric Monitoring2.2. Tidal Monitoring2.3. Beach MonitoringSemiannual Beach Profile SurveysMonthly Beach Width Measurements5.0. Maintenance DredgingPlanning and PermittingMaintenance Dredging7.0. Reporting Program7.2. Annual ReportActivityReportMerkel & Associates, Inc. 15

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportThis document serves as the annual report for 2009. It is divided into three primary sections:Biological Monitoring, Physical Monitoring, and Maintenance Dredging Program. Copies ofprior reports are posted on-line at www.bolsachicarestoration.org.In addition to the schedule in Figure 0-2, a table summarizing the dates of each field event during2009 is provided in Appendix 1-A.HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL REFERENCE DATAThe vertical datum used throughout this document is North American Vertical Datum of 1988(NAVD88), with units expressed in meters. For purposes of equating this datum to recognizedbiological zonation patterns in tidal marine systems, NAVD88 roughly equates to Mean LowerLow Water (MLLW). More precisely, at the project site, NAVD88 lies approximately 0.06 m(0.2 feet) above National Ocean Service (NOS) MLLW and 0.79 m (2.6 feet) below NOS MeanSea Level (MSL; NOS, 2007).Horizontally geo-referenced data are in meters relative to California State Plane Zone 6, NorthAmerican Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Area measurements are presented in hectares, withconversions to acres provided due to the greater ease with which many readers can envisionareas in this unit of measurement. Additionally, discussion of sediment accumulation anddredging volumes are presented in cubic meters, with conversions to cubic yards due to theprevalence of this unit in the commercial dredging field.DEFINITIONS AND GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCESTo assist the reader, this section has been provided to serve as a reference for terminology andabbreviations used in this report. In addition, this section includes a map of the Bolsa ChicaLowlands and surroundings labeled with place names to assist in following discussions that aregeographically referenced to particular areas within the site (Figure 0-1).Term Abbreviation NotesFull Tidal Basin FTB Area: 158.3 hectare (ha)(391.2 acres [ac])Future Full Tidal Basin FFTB Area: 103.8 ha (256.5 ac) (not joined to FTB)Muted Tidal Basin MTB Area: 76.6 ha (189.3 ac)Seasonal PondsArea: 49.6 ha (122.5 ac)Muted Pocket Marsh MPM Area: 14.0 ha (34.7 ac)Nest Site 1 NS 1Nest Site 2 NS 2Nest Site 3 NS 3South Tern Island STI Inner Bolsa Bay (LETE and SNPL monitoring only)North Tern Island NTI Inner Bolsa Bay (LETE and SNPL monitoring only)Rabbit IslandIntertidal island in northwest portion of FTBWater Control Structure WCS Gates to regulate tidal flow from FTB to MTBsMerkel & Associates, Inc. 16

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportI. BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAMThe biological monitoring stations were established using direction provided in the Bolsa ChicaLowland Restoration Project Biological Monitoring and Follow-up Plan (Monitoring Plan), aswell as observations made in the field at the time of station determination. Figure 1-1 presentsthe general sampling locations for water quality, benthic infauna, fish, and birds. Within each ofthe following sections, more detailed maps of sampling locations are presented as needed.Appendix 1-A summarizes the dates of each field event. Appendix 1-B provides geographiccoordinates for the sampling locations.1.1. VEGETATION/HABITAT MONITORINGIntroductionThe distribution, composition, and evolution of vegetation communities and unvegetated habitatsare being monitored through the use of aerial photography and quantitative transect methods.The Monitoring Plan calls for vegetation monitoring to be conducted in Year 2, 5, and 10. Thetransect monitoring will be conducted in those years, but the Steering Committee has opted tocollect the aerial imagery annually to more comprehensively track changes in habitat distributionand composition during the initial years post-restoration. Therefore Year 3 monitoring waslimited to aerial image collection and habitat mapping.MethodologyHabitat MappingTo map vegetated and non-vegetated habitats, the Bolsa Chica study area was contract flown onJuly 13, 2009 to photograph the site at a scale of 1:4,800 from true vertical position on 9”x9”false-color infrared (IR) film. Additionally, a single 1:19,400 true color spot aerial photographwas taken coincident with the IR imagery. This photograph was intended to provide anadditional tool for habitat interpretation and mapping as well as serve as a base map for otherfield monitoring efforts and reporting.The photos were taken at approximately 1100 hours at a measured FTB tide of approximated+0.90m NAVD88. This allowed photography of as much exposed intertidal habitat as possiblewhile lighting and weather conditions were suitable for the photography. The ocean tide at thistime (measured at Los Angeles Outer Harbor) was +0.98m NAVD88. Tidal muting in the FTBprevented the tide from getting to the 0.0m tide that was targeted by the Monitoring Planmethodology. Attempts to collect the imagery in May and June, at lower tides and at acomparable date to the May imagery collected in 2008, were hampered by a heavy marine layerduring the appropriate tides.Following the survey flights, the aerial images were digitally scanned and registered to theproject site. Heads-up digitization of vegetation boundaries in the imagery was performed tomap communities in accordance with CDFG Holland classification codes (Holland 1986).Additional codes were used as necessary to supplement the vegetation codes with biologicallyimportant marsh zones, non-vegetated communities, and marine habitats that are lacking in theHolland system. These codes followed the Nearshore Habitat Classification system developedfor coastal marine mapping (M&A 2003).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 17

MutedPocket MarshSTATION 1wq1STATION 3(benthic only)East WaterControl StructureTidalMonitoringStationwq2STATION 2Water Quality StationsInlet Bathymetric MonitoringAvian and Vegetation Study Boundary0 100 200 400 600 800MetersMonitoring stationsBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 1-1Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportThe draft digitized habitat maps were printed and taken into the field for ground-truthing.Following field efforts, the habitat maps were updated and map products and summary statisticsof habitat acreage and distribution across the various project components were generated. Itshould be noted that the aerial photography used for digitizing are not true orthophotos. As aresult, the geographical position of features interpreted from the georeferenced aerial photos maychange slightly from year to year. Therefore, small variations in habitat acreage (

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportsite average. A photo of each cordgrass transplant site was taken from the west end of eachtransplant transect looking roughly eastward. These photos were compared to those collected theprior year in August 2008.ResultsHabitat MappingTen vegetated and seven non-vegetated habitats were mapped within the 402-ha (994-acre) studyarea in 2009. Vegetated habitats included southern coastal salt marsh, disturbed coastal saltmarsh, cordgrass, mule fat scrub, coastal sage scrub, coastal and valley freshwater marsh,southern arroyo willow riparian forest, eelgrass, decaying/transitional vegetation, and non-nativevegetation. Although cordgrass is a component of southern coastal salt marsh, it was mappedseparately to track its spread throughout the site. Non-vegetated habitats included salt panne,disturbed salt panne, intertidal sand shoal, intertidal mudflat, open water, unvegetated nest site,and urban/developed. Figure 1-2 presents the habitats mapped on-site, and Table 1-1summarizes the acreage of each. The following text describes each habitat in detail.Table 1-1. Area of habitats within the Bolsa Chica study area (July 2009).Habitat Hectares AcresSouthern coastal salt marsh 76.5 189.0Disturbed southern coastal salt marsh* 2.9 7.1Cordgrass*

0 250 500 1,000MetersHabitat TypeSouthern coastal salt marshDisturbed southern coastal salt marshCordgrassMule fat scrubCoastal duneCoastal sage scrubCoastal and valley freshwater marshSouthern arroyo willow riparian forestEelgrassDecaying/transitional vegetationNon-native vegetationSalt panneDisturbed salt panneIntertidal sand shoalIntertidal mudflatOpen waterUnvegetated nest siteUrban/developedμHabitat map - July 2009Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 1-2Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportinfluence. Therefore, recognizable zonation of the salt marsh is not present at much of the site.Species that are tolerant of highly saline soils continue to persist and dominate the flora in thesenon-tidal areas(Seasonal Ponds, FFTB, and central and east MTBs). This relictual marsh is almost entirelycomposed of large expanses of pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica and Arthrocnemumsubterminale). The pickleweed quality varies throughout the site from tall and robust, to short instature and desiccated. Other species common in the salt marsh in low densities include: saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), saltwort (Batis maritima), and alkali heath (Frankenia salina).The majority of the southern coastal salt marsh habitat within Bolsa Chica is of moderate qualitybased on its expansive nature, isolation from human disturbance, and limited infestation byexotic and upland species. While there is low plant diversity within this habitat, such conditionsare normal for coastal salt marsh habitats and especially so for non-tidal marshes that experiencehypersaline sediment conditions and the environmental extremes of wet and dry seasons andyears.More functional coastal salt marsh habitat is now present in the FTB (on Rabbit Island) andMuted Pocket Marsh (MPM), both of which received daily tidal flushing following therestoration completion in 2006. Plant diversity in the MPM is notably higher than the other saltmarsh areas of the restoration site, intrusion by non-native species is limited, and it has welldevelopedtidal channels that provide enough circulation to limit the extent of algal mats on thesurface. The salt marsh on Rabbit Island is thriving at elevations receiving regular tidalinundation, but is limited from upward expansion by the persistence of hottentot fig(Carpobrotus edulis) above the high tide line.Sparse coastal salt marsh has become established at the base of theriprap along the cordgrass bench in the FTB. It is not visible onthe habitat map but is expected to expand in the coming years.Pickleweed sprouting in the FTB.The west MTB has been open to tidal influence from the FTBsince March 2008, with the salt marsh receiving daily tidalflushing for the first time in many decades. This resulted in theinundation of large areas of pickleweed for some or nearly all ofeach day. In some areas the inundation frequency may be greaterthan the tolerance of the pickleweed; those areas are expected toconvert to open mudflat in 2 to 3 years. The tidal ranges achievedin the west MTB are narrow and somewhat inconsistent due topoor drainage in the FTB and concerns by Orange County VectorControl about exposed mudflats, which can be a considerablesource of mosquitoes in the area.The central and east MTBs were inundated for extended periods of time during the 2008/2009winter season and could not be readily drained because the water control structures had not beenbrought on line yet. This compounded the effect of extended periods of inundation during theprior winter and resulted in the conversion of some areas of pickleweed into dead or decayingMerkel & Associates, Inc. 22

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportplant material in the central and east MTBs, described further below. In some areas the deadpickleweed had already decomposed and was mapped as salt panne.There were similar expanses of decaying salt marsh in the Seasonal Ponds, following longperiods of inundation. This effect was the main contributor to the reduction in the extent of saltmarsh from 92.0 ha in 2008 to 77.0 ha in 2009. Salt marsh may grow in these areas of theSeasonal Ponds in future dry years, but the losses in the muted tidal basins will likely bemaintained as these areas convert to mud flat when tidal influence is introduced in 2010.As noted above, cordgrass was not included in the coastal salt marsh mapping in order to bettertrack its spread over time.Disturbed Southern Coastal Salt MarshThis habitat category was used to distinguish areasof southern coastal salt marsh that were degradeddue primarily to disturbance by heavy equipmentand vehicles associated with both the constructionelements of the restoration program and the ongoingcontamination remediation activities withinthe oil field. This category was also used for theunvegetated sidecast piles of sediment placed oneither side of the channels that were dug out of themarsh as part of the restoration of the MTBs. Theamount of disturbed salt marsh was reduced from7.1 ha in 2008 to 2.9 ha primarily through theestablishment of pickleweed at the base of thesidecast mounds.Disturbed coastal salt marsh (tire tracks) in salt marshmapped as decaying/transitional vegetation.CordgrassCordgrass was transplanted at fourteen locations inAugust 2007, covering an area of 0.3 ha. During thefirst year post-transplant (2008), the persisting plantscovered 196 m 2 (0.02 ha). In August 2009, thecordgrass increased in coverage by 90% from 2008 toapproximately 366 m 2 (0.04 ha), with cordgrasspersisting at 10 of the 14 transplant sites (Figure 1-3).The cordgrass had expanded outside of the originaltransplant area at many locations and was observed tobe more robust than in 2008. Cordgrass at all sites wasflowering, with seeds seen scattered on the mudflataround the plants. Transplant sites 11, 12, and 13 are atCordgrass expansion in the Full Tidal Basin.a slightly lower elevation than the other sites and have experienced inundation for extendedperiods of time as a result of the tidal muting in the FTB. As anticipated, cordgrass at these threesites has not persisted. One additional transplant site, site 6, has also failed. The cause of failurefollowing the initial transplant is not apparent.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 23

8August 25, 2009 cordgrass distribution - 0.04 hectare (0.09 acre)August 22, 2007 cordgrass transplant sites - 0.3 hectare (0.7 acre)Numbers are transplant IDs9711 10 1126543213140 100 200 400 600MetersμFull Tidal Basin cordgrass distributionBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 1-3Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportGoose droppings and prints aroundgrazed cordgrass patch.At nearly all transplant sites, there was evidence of browsing bygeese (footprints and droppings), with a portion of the cordgrasssheared off at ground level. It is assumed from observationsduring other survey work that Canada geese (Branta canadensis),which commonly eat cordgrass, were the grazers. Although therewas a considerable loss of cordgrass leaves at some sites(sometimes as much as half of the cordgrass), it is anticipated thatimpacts from grazing geese will be less detrimental to the overallcoverage in the future as the cordgrass continues to expand.Within transplant sites of cordgrass the shoot density ranged from54 to 136 shoots/m 2 , with a mean of 72 shoots/m 2 . This was aconsiderable increase in density from the prior year (2008), whenthe mean shoot density was 23 shoots/m 2 . The canopy heightranged from 9 to 79 cm, with a mean of 46 cm. The mean height the year before (2008) was 52cm. Photos taken of each persisting transplant site are presented in Appendix 1-C along with themean shoot density and mean canopy height for each site.Mule Fat ScrubMule fat scrub occurs primarily in the southeast portion of the Seasonal Ponds, where perennialfreshwater input supports several freshwater vegetation communities, and sporadically along theeastern boundaries of the study area near other sources of freshwater. This habitat is nearlymonotypic mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) and is mapped in such limited areas that it is notvisible on the habitat map.Coastal Sage ScrubCoastal sage scrub occurring within the project site is Baccharis scrub, composed almost entirelyof coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), Emory’s baccharis (Baccharis emoryi), and various nonnativeweeds such as radish (Raphanus sativus) and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Baccharisscrub is a sub-class of coastal sage scrub that is generally almost entirely dominated by coyotebrush and is typically indicative of greater soil disturbance, higher moisture levels, and/orsandier soils. This vegetation occurs near the more highly disturbed eastern boundary of thestudy area, however it was mapped in such limited areas that it is not visible on the habitat map.Coastal and Valley Freshwater MarshA few small areas of coastal and valley freshwater marsh were mapped in the southeast corner ofthe seasonal ponds. The freshwater marsh is composed primarily of broad-leaved cattail (Typhalatifolia) and narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), with occasional California bulrush(Scirpus californicus) and prairie bulrush (Scirpus robustus) nearby. These small freshwatermarshes persist on the margins of the coastal salt marsh due to perennial freshwater input as bothsurface runoff and groundwater seepage from adjacent lands. The marsh extent was nearly thesame in 2009 as 2008.Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian ForestA single mature stand of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) occurs adjacent to the freshwater marshand mule fat scrub in the southeastern portion of the Seasonal Ponds. This willow stand receiveshigh amounts of seepage from the adjacent bluff as well as surface runoff sources and has aMerkel & Associates, Inc. 25

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportsmall drainage running through it out onto the salt panne. The extent of this riparian habitat wasnearly the same in 2009 as 2008.EelgrassTwo years have passed since the initial 0.4 ha (0.9 acre) eelgrasstransplant. On June 18, 2009, 13.1 ha (35.5 acres) of eelgrasswere mapped in the FTB (Figure 1-4). Eelgrass has persisted atall of the original 15 transplant sites and has expandedthroughout much of the southern portion of the FTB. The rapidexpansion of eelgrass is due to both rhizomatous spread andnatural dispersion of seed. The eelgrass was flowering when itwas transplanted and has flowered each year since. It is unlikelythat eelgrass will expand into the highly dynamic inlet of theFTB, where rapidly accumulating and shifting sands discourage theestablishment of seedlings.Eelgrass in the FTB.Decaying/Transitional VegetationThis habitat was used to describe transitionalvegetation communities exhibiting the effects ofexposure to saltwater or inundation for extendedperiods of time. This included rampikes of deadeucalyptus and Myoporum trees that ring the MutedPocket Marsh and presently provide roosting andperching habitat for a variety of birds. These trees aregradually decaying and falling into the marsh. Thishabitat also includes acres of decaying/transitionalcoastal salt marsh (dominated by pickleweed) in theMTBs and Seasonal Ponds.Decaying coastal salt marsh in the MTBs.Non-Native VegetationNon-native vegetation was mapped primarily on the eastern boundaries of the study area inassociation with various oil field operations and staging areas, as well as residential areas thatcontribute escaped landscape plantings. Common species include: radish, black mustard, castorbean(Ricinus communis), myoporum (Myoporum laetum), hottentot fig, and tumbleweed(Amaranthus albus). Notably, there continues to be little to no occurrence of the highly invasivenon-natives giant reed (Arundo donax) or pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) within the studyarea.The areas immediately adjacent to the roads borderingthe marshes often supported a narrow mix of roadsideweeds and a few native species such as goldenbush(Isocoma menziesii). Unless these weed bands weremore than about 3 m wide and monotypically nonnative,these roadside areas were not called out as adistinct habitat. Rather, they were included as eitherthe coastal salt marsh they were mixed with or theurban/developed road, as appropriate.Slender-leaved iceplant on Nest Site 1.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 26

August 24, 2007 eelgrass transplant sites - 0.3 hectare (0.8 acre)June 30, 2008 eelgrass distribution - 0.8 hectare (2.0 acres)June 18, 2009 eelgrass distribution - 13.1 hectare (32.5 acres)0 200 400 800MetersμFull Tidal Basin eelgrass distributionBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 1-4Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportThe distribution of non-native vegetation in 2009 was largely unchanged from 2008, though thetotal area increased by 2.5 ha. The increase was due primarily to the expansion of hottentot figand slender-leaved iceplant (Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum) on the Nest Sites. Slender-leavediceplant had grown dense enough as to preclude nesting by several tern species.Salt PanneThe habitat covering the third largest area within the study area was unvegetated salt panne,primarily in the Seasonal Ponds and Future Full Tidal Basin areas. These areas were historicallysubsided marsh plain inundated by seawater, but are currently inundated intermittently byprimarily freshwater. These low permeability areas collect water during rainy months, and laterdry by evaporation as conditions become warmer in spring and summer months. This leaveshypersaline conditions that are inhospitable to most marsh plants. Although pickleweed hascolonized much of the salt panne or its margins, the areas that are lowest in elevation and thatpool water for extended periods remain unvegetated.Salt panne habitat expanded in the MTBs, as some low-lying areas of pickleweed died andconverted to unvegetated salt panne. In other areas of the MTBs, salt panne converted to coastalsalt marsh following the introduction of marine waters from the FTB. Overall there was a slightreduction in salt panne from 2008 to 2009.Disturbed Salt PanneDue to the use of the salt panne habitat by variousmigratory birds, including nesting western snowy plovers, itis relevant to call out large areas of salt panne that aredisturbed. Generally, these areas are previously flatexpanses that have been traversed by various trucks andequipment, primarily for contaminated sediment removalwork. When disturbed during wet periods, this activityleaves the ground deeply rutted, less desirable to foragingand nesting birds, and of some concern in relation toDisturbed salt panne in the Seasonal Ponds.harboring pests such as mosquitoes into the summer season.Disturbed salt panne increased in area slightly since 2008, but made up only 4% of the total saltpanne area.Intertidal Sand ShoalThis category refers to the depositional flood shoals present in the FTB inlet. The shoals werecomposed of unvegetated and unconsolidated sand that can be highly transitory in nature as theyare chronically accreted and reworked by the tides and waves. Their mapped extent was fullydependent on the tidal elevation at the time of the aerial imagery collection. The mapped shoalwas much smaller in 2009 than 2008 due to the recent completion of the maintenance dredgingin early 2009 that removed much of the flood shoals. A more comprehensive assessmentshoaling is included in the bathymetric monitoring section of this report (see Section 2.2).Intertidal MudflatThis habitat included the unvegetated intertidal mudflats occurring below elevations at whichvascular plant communities occur. This habitat occurred primarily on the borders of the FTB, inportions of the Muted Pocket Marsh, and at the lower elevations of Rabbit Island whereMerkel & Associates, Inc. 28

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportinundated salt marsh transitioned to mudflat after the opening of the inlet. Although thecordgrass bench on the east shore of the FTB is above the typical intertidal mudflat zone, it willalso be mapped as intertidal mudflat until such time as marsh vegetation develops. Slightly lessmudflat was mapped in 2009 than 2008 due to greater tidal inundation at the time of the aerialimage capture (covering the mudflat).Open WaterOpen water habitat included all tidal waters, and all permanently inundated areas in the FTB,Muted Pocket Marsh, and Freeman Creek. Standing water in the Seasonal Ponds and FFTBareas were mapped as salt panne in consideration of their underlying, persistent substrate. Openwater habitat covered the greatest acreage in 2009, due to the large expanses of open water in theFTB. As with mudflat and sand shoal, the mapped extent of open water was dependent on thetidal elevation at the time of the aerial imagery collection. Additionally, areas where eelgrasswas mapped were tabulated as that habitat type, thus reducing the open water coverage by thatamount.Unvegetated Nest SiteThis habitat includes Nest Sites 1, 2, & 3. They are topped with sand and groomed to appeal totargeted sensitive avian species that nest on such sites. Portions of the nest sites that had nonnativevegetation growing at a high enough density to preclude nesting by the targeted avianspecies were excluded from the total nest site area calculations and mapped instead as non-nativevegetation. Therefore the total area of Nest Site available in 2009 was 9% less than in 2008.Urban/DevelopedThe areas designated as urban/developed were comprised of paved streets, paved and unpavedoil field roadways and berm roads, recreational paths, oil pads, or highly disturbed areas adjacentto the residential neighborhoods or related to oil field operations and contamination remediation.DiscussionThe most notable habitat distributions observed during the 2009 (Year 3) vegetation monitoringprogram were the shifts in the proportions of open water, mudflat, and salt marsh in the MTBs,the expansion of eelgrass and cordgrass habitat in the FTB, and the expansion of non-nativeweeds on the avian nesting sites. These observations are discussed in detail below. Figure 1-5presents the 2008 and 2009 habitat maps together for comparison.By mid 2009, when the habitat mapping was conducted, inundation conditions in the MTBs hadmoved somewhat closer to those envisioned by the original restoration design. The west MTBwater control structure had been operational since March 2008, so that by 2009 coastal saltmarsh habitat at the lowest elevations in the basin experienced prolonged or permanentinundation periods. As anticipated, the marsh plants were unable to withstand this change anddied, leaving the skeletons of the plants still present. In some areas of the west MTB, the deadbranches had decomposed and converted to open water in the tidal channels or to mudflat atelevations between the channel and persisting salt marsh.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 29

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportDecaying coastal salt marsh (left), decaying low marsh in front of persisting high marsh (center), dead salt marsh transitioning to mud flat (right).These shifts in the MTBs can be seen in the comparison of 2008 and 2009 in Figure 1-5. Thesite-wide decrease in coastal salt marsh and increase in decaying/transitional vegetation seen inTable 1-2 between 2008 and 2009 is attributable primarily to this transition effect, mostly in thewest MTB, but also in the central and east MTBs as well.Table 1-2. Area (hectares) of select habitats in 2008 and 2009 (entire site).Habitat 2008 2009Southern coastal salt marsh 92.0 76.5Disturbed southern coastal salt marsh 7.1 2.9Cordgrass

2008 20090 250 500MetersHabitat TypeSouthern coastal salt marshDisturbed southern coastal salt marshCordgrassMule fat scrubCoastal sage scrubCoastal and valley freshwater marshSouthern arroyo willow riparian forestEelgrassDecaying/transitional vegetationNon-native vegetationSalt panneDisturbed salt panneIntertidal sand shoalIntertidal mudflatOpen waterUnvegetated nest siteUrban/developedμComparison of habitat distributions betweenMay 2008 and July 2009Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 1-5Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportconditions and resulting habitat distributions. The final design of the MTBs anticipated theycould support approximately 51.1 ha (126.3 acres) of coastal salt marsh. In 2008 the three MTBshad a total of 49.8 ha (122.9 acres) of coastal salt marsh and disturbed coastal salt marsh. In2009 the three MTBs had a total of 36.9 ha (91.2 acres) of coastal salt marsh and disturbedcoastal salt marsh.When evaluating the functionality of the MTB marsh in light of the possible shortfall of coastalsalt marsh coverage, it is important to recall that a central goal of the MTB creation was toprovide ample nesting habitat for the state endangered Belding’s Savannah sparrow, which nestsexclusively in coastal salt marsh, primarily pickleweed. The use of the MTBs by breedingBelding’s Savannah sparrows will be discussed in detail in a later chapter of this document,however it is useful to consider here an excerpt from those survey results as the quality andhealth of the salt marsh are considered. The two consecutive breeding season surveys forBelding’s Savannah sparrow in 2008 documented first 45 and then 72 breeding territories in theMTBs. In 2009, the two consecutive breeding season surveys documented 123 and 93 breedingterritories in the same area. Although the data highlight the considerable variability in resultsbetween same-year surveys, they also document that the MTBs supported increased numbers ofbreeding Belding’s Savannah sparrow in 2009 compared to 2008, despite the conversion of somenesting habitat to open water and mudflat. The final breeding success of these birds (number offledglings) cannot be determined by the present survey methodology, however their continueduse of the MTBs while suitable habitat elsewhere in the reserve remains unoccupied suggestsspecific selection of this area by breeding Belding’s Savannah sparrows.Prior to the restoration all marsh vegetation on site was non tidal and limited in its functionalityas habitat, with few of the ecological elements of a healthy salt marsh such as marine fish andinvertebrate communities. Introduction of tidal influence to the MTBs from the FTB wasintended to convert the relictual marsh to a true coastal salt marsh, with open water channels,intertidal mudflats, and regularly inundated marsh. This transition has been documented to bewell underway by the present monitoring work.The reduction in the amount of disturbed coastalsalt marsh seen in Table 1-2 and Figure 1-5reflects the expansion of healthy coastal saltmarsh up onto the unvegetated sidecast from tidalchannel creation and into areas of the marshpreviously disturbed by construction orcontamination remediation actions. In Figure 1-5the rows of sidecast mounds (mapped asdisturbed coastal salt marsh) can be seen alongthe tidal channels of the west and central MTBsin 2008. In the 2009 map these mounds areSidecast mounds in the central MTB.greatly reduced in size as rainfall smoothed themdown and coastal salt marsh expanded up their sides. The elevated mounds serve as a refugefrom tidal inundation and are heavily used at high tide by loafing shorebirds. They are also usedby Belding’s Savannah sparrows as elevated perch points, and as they become increasinglyvegetated will likely provide additional nesting habitat at elevations safe from tidal inundation.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 32

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTheir vegetation by salt marsh will also help to offset losses of pickleweed at lower elevationsdue to the introduction of tidal influence.The FTB was designed to eventually support 7.7 ha (19.1 acres) of pickleweed. In 2009,approximately 7.0 ha (17.3 acres) of coastal salt marsh were present in the basin, includingRabbit Island. The further expansion of salt marsh on Rabbit Island will continue to be inhibitedby the large expanses of non-native hottentot fig (iceplant) that persist at the higher elevations.Since Rabbit Island holds the greatest opportunity for gains in salt marsh coverage in the FTB,treatment and removal of the iceplant should be a high management priority. This is discussedfurther below.There are multiple management actions occurring throughout the site to improve the condition ofcoastal salt marsh habitat. Water management improvements planned for 2010 will includeculvert repairs between cells of the Seasonal Ponds, which will improve drainage of the saltmarsh habitat on the margins of the cells. In addition a water management plan is in place thatwill use large pumps when needed to quickly lower water levels in the Seasonal Ponds followingheavy or long rain events. While these management actions primarily target the habitat needs ofthe western snowy plover, they have the added benefit of reducing long-period inundation ofBelding’s Savannah sparrow nesting habitat. Additionally, contaminated soil removal activitiesin the FFTB and Seasonal Ponds (that often remove some coastal salt marsh) are in the finalphases and are expected to be completed by 2012, after which there should be no further lossesof salt marsh due to this excavation work.Weed management actions are also key to improvement of coastal salt marsh habitat.Implementation of an iceplant (hottentot fig) treatment program on Rabbit Island is planned for2010 (funded by USFWS), which could allow for the expansion of salt marsh vegetation intohigher elevations. Additionally, although limited in scope, all efforts by CDFG to control nonnativeweeds along the roadways of the site improve the quality of the adjacent coastal salt marshhabitat on the cell margins.From a habitat standpoint, it is critical that the FTB inletmaintenance program be fine-tuned to alleviate tidal muting,allowing the FTB to experience low (below 0 MLLW) tides ona regular basis (currently it rarely does). This would allow thecentral and east MTBs to be opened up to tidal influence fromthe FTB, setting in motion the process of physical andbiological transition described above in the west MTB. Onceall three basins reach a point of equilibrium the extent andquality of coastal salt marsh habitat can be fully evaluated.Improvement of the muting condition in the FTB may alsoallow the pickleweed that has sprouted at the base of the riprapon the FTB cordgrass bench to establish and expand, providingsome shelter for wildlife between the mudflat and riprap. Thephysical functioning of the FTB is discussed in detail in ChapterII - Physical Monitoring Program.Pickleweed on the FTB cordgrass bench.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 33

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAnother habitat goal of the restoration was the establishment of eelgrass in the FTB. The 2007transplant was successful, more than doubling in size after one year (to 0.8 ha [2.0 acres] in June2008), and reaching 13.1 ha (35.5 acres) in June 2009. The eelgrass began flowering shortlyafter transplant, which was likely the source of its spread to areas nearly a kilometer from thetransplant sites. Figure 1-4 shows the pattern of expansion year to year.The establishment of eelgrass in the FTB enhances the ecological value of the Bolsa ChicaLowlands complex. Eelgrass plays many important roles in coastal bays and estuaries. Itclarifies water through sediment trapping and stabilization. It also provides the benefits ofnutrient transformation and water oxygenation. Eelgrass serves as a primary producer in adetrital-based food-web, and is further directly grazed upon by invertebrates, fish, and birds, thuscontributing to ecosystem health at multiple trophic levels. Additionally, it provides physicalstructure as a habitat, and supports epiphytic plants and animals that in turn are grazed upon byother invertebrates, fish, and birds. It is also a nursery area for finfish and shellfish, both residentspecies and oceanic species that enter the estuaries to breed or spawn. Besides providingimportant habitat for fish, eelgrass is also considered an important food resource for migratorybirds during critical life stages, including migratory periods. As can been seen in the followingsections of this report, the invertebrate and fish populations are increasingly diverse in the FTBas a result of the complexity added to the basin by the eelgrass habitat. In the coming yearseelgrass will likely expand to form meadows in the subtidal waters of the mid and lower FTB,and may form patchy or seasonal beds in the northern FTB where water clarity is generallyreduced.The transplant of 3,000 m 2 cordgrass into the FTB in August 2007 was intended to accelerate thedevelopment of low salt marsh habitat, with the goal of providing suitable habitat for light-footedclapper rails (Rallus longirostris levipes). By December 2007, four months post-transplant, mostof the planted shoots had senesced and fallen over, so all shoots mapped and measured in 2008were new growth. In 2008, one year post-transplant, the majority of the transplant sites hadpersisted and although only 196 m 2 of cordgrass was present, it had expanded within eachtransplant site to become denser, and was healthy, flowering, and dispersing seed. The cordgrasscontinued to expand, reaching 366 m 2 in August 2009. The slow establishment is typical ofcordgrass transplants, but may have been exacerbated by the goose browsing describedpreviously and by prolonged inundation periods resulting from tidal muting in the FTB.However a key benefit of the transplant was the establishment of some persistent stands ofcordgrass that began producing seed early on, allowing it to spread on its own to suitablelocations and tidal elevations. Seed from the cordgrass planted on Rabbit Island may establishnew plants along the northwest shoreline of the FTB. The permanent losses of transplantedcordgrass at the lower elevations on the cordgrass shelf reflect the reality that much of the shelfwill never be suitable for cordgrass. The chronic low tide muting has pushed the cordgrass,which typically occupies the lowest elevations of coastal salt marsh, to higher elevations roughlyhalf way up the shelf. Although this may reduce the potential habitat development for lightfootedclapper rails, the unvegetated mudflat is developing a rich benthic community and isheavily utilized by foraging shorebirds at low tide.A final observation to consider from the 2009 habitat monitoring work is the increase in nonnativevegetation. Although prolonged inundation by marine waters resulted in the reduction ofnon-native weeds on the margins of some MTB cells, there was a considerable expansion of non-Merkel & Associates, Inc. 34

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportnative vegetation on Nest Site 1 (NS1). The USFWS Monitoring Plan indicates that if vegetativecover on the Nest Sites exceeds 5%, vegetation must be removed before March of each year.CDFG has undertaken weed control efforts during the winter to prepare NS1 for the nestingseason. This involved spraying herbicide with a backpack sprayer and hand removal. Despitethe intensive efforts this method was not effective. It is recommended that consideration begiven to treatment of large areas with salt water by way of a portable irrigation system. Thismethod has been tested and used at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach with a great deal ofsuccess (Agri Chemical & Supply, Inc. 2006).Although the extent of non-native vegetation on Rabbit Island is not expanding, it continues tothreaten a small population of the rare plant coast woolly heads (Nemacaulis denudata var.denudata) that persists there. This plant will need immediate protection through removal of theiceplant that is encroaching on its remaining populations. The USFWS Monitoring Plan calls forthe removal of iceplant from the higher elevations of Rabbit Island to restore open dune habitat,followed by the collection and reintroduction of coast woolly heads seed to cleared areas. Suchan effort will require a multi-year eradication program in conjunction with several re-seedingevents. CDFG has indicated that they will take the lead on this effort and are in the process ofpreparing a 5-year eradication plan for implementation in the coming years.The next full vegetation monitoring event, including aerial photography, habitat mapping, andtransect surveys, will be conducted in summer 2011 (Year 5) as called for in the MonitoringPlan. Additional photography and habitat mapping will be done in 2010 to document interimconditions.1.2. SOILS/SEDIMENT MONITORINGThe Monitoring Plan does not call for soils monitoring in Year 3 of the monitoring program.1.3. FISH COMMUNITY MONITORINGIntroductionThe Monitoring Plan calls for fisheries monitoring to be conducted in Years 2, 5, and 10following the opening of the FTB to the ocean. The Bolsa Chica Steering Committee decided tocollect an additional year of data in Year 3 as well. The first sampling event of Year 3 wasconducted during the prior reporting period, in October 2008. The remainder of the Year 3monitoring was conducted during the present reporting period (January to July 2009).MethodologyFisheries sampling was conducted over a three-day period each quarter to obtain the appropriatetidal elevations for each gear type. During 2009 surveys were conducted during daylight hourson January 7, 8, and 12, April 20, 24, and 29, and July 21, 23, and August 12. Each quarter,sampling was done at Stations 1 and 2 in the FTB, in the Muted Pocket Marsh (MPM), and in thewest and central MTBs (Figure 1-1). The coordinates of the sampling locations are provided inAppendix 1-B.Sampling equipment included an otter trawl, purse seine, and large beach seine at Stations 1 and2 and a large beach seine only in the MPM. A small beach seine was used in the MTBs. AMerkel & Associates, Inc. 35

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportvariety of depth, current, substrate, and exposure conditions exist within each station, each ofwhich encompasses a large area. To characterize the fish communities that utilize the largesampling stations, three replicates hauls were made across each station, using gear as indicated inFigure 1-6. The following text describes each gear type.The otter trawl consists of a 4.6-m trawl with 2-cm mesh in the body and 0.3-cm mesh in the codend. The otter trawl was deployed at offshore sampling locations using a small vessel travelingbetween 1.5 and 2 knots along 250-m transects. The trawl was used to sample primarilydemersal offshore fish at Stations 1 and 2 in the FTB. The otter trawl was not used in the MPMdue to the inaccessibility of the site by boat.The purse seine consists of a 66-m x 6-m seine with 1.2-cm mesh in the wings and 0.6-cm mesh in the bag. Thepurse seine was deployed at offshore sampling locationsusing a small vessel. This gear was used to sample adultand juvenile fish species in the water column as well asdemersal fish at Stations 1 and 2 in the FTB. The purseseine was not used in the MPM due to the inaccessibilityof the site by boat.Purse seine being deployed in the FTB.The large beach seine consists of a 15- m x 1.8-m net with a 1.8-m x 1.8-m x 1.8-m bag in thecenter. The seine has 1.2-centimeter (cm) mesh in the wings and 0.6-cm mesh in the bag. It wasutilized to sample shoreline waters between the bottom and surface at depths of 0 to 1 m. Theseine was positioned parallel to shore between 11 and 30 m from the water’s edge, depending onbottom contours. The seine was held in place for 3 minutes and then walked slowly to shore.Small beach seine in the West MTB.The small beach seine is a 7.3-m x 1.2 m-net with 0.3-cm mesh,with no bag. It was utilized to sample waters between 0-1 m indepth on the shorelines of the MTBs. The seine was positionedperpendicular to the shore, walked parallel to the shore for ameasured distance, then pivoted in and walked to shore. Thelength of the each haul was determined by the space and wateravailable at the time of the sampling and recorded on the fielddatasheet.In 2009, the MTB fish sampling program was not fully implemented because the basins were notfully open to the FTB through the tide gates at the water control structure (WCS). The westMTB was opened to FTB tidal influence in March 2008, and by July some tidal water had spilledover from the west to the central MTB (as designed). In 2009 three replicate small seine haulswere conducted in each basin, though the central MTB was non-tidal. The east MTB was notsampled.The January 2009 sampling was conducted immediately prior to the initiation of the first inletmaintenance dredging event in the FTB. At the time of the survey the dredge was staged on theFTB launch ramp, preventing the monitoring team from launching the survey vessel for thebeach seine work. Therefore, the sites had to be accessed by car and on foot. All samplingMerkel & Associates, Inc. 36

BS PM Rep3Muted Pocket MarshBS PM Rep2STATION 1BS PM Rep1PS1 Rep1OT1 Rep1BS1 Rep1West MutedTidal BasinSS WMTB Rep3SS WMTB Rep2SS WMTB Rep1Central MutedTidal BasinSS CMTB Rep3OT1 Rep2BS1 Rep2PS1 Rep2SS CMTB Rep2SS CMTB Rep1BS1 Rep3PS1 Rep3East MutedTidal BasinOT1 Rep3Full Tidal BasinOT2 Rep1PS2 Rep1BS2 Rep1OT2 Rep2PS2 Rep2BS2 Rep2STATION 2OT2 Rep3BS2 Rep3PS2 Rep3Purse SeineLarge Beach Seine (BS)Small Beach Seine (SS)Otter Trawl0 100 200 400 600 800MetersμFisheries sampling locationsBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 1-6Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportlocations were accessible except the Station 1, Replicate 2 large beach seine location. Thereforeonly two replicates were collected for Station 1 at that time.All fish captured in the nets were transferred to buckets or tubs filled with seawater, worked up,and released. Data collected for fish caught in each haul included species identification,individual counts, standard length (in millimeters [mm]), and wet weight (in grams [g]).Ectoparasites, lesions, or tumors, if any, were also noted. Species that were not identified in thefield were transported to the laboratory and identified utilizing field identification referencesand/or a dissecting microscope. All fish identifications were made using widely accepted fieldidentification guides such as Miller and Lea (1972) and Eschmeyer et al. (1983). Fishnomenclature was standardized in conformance with Nelson et al. (2004).If more than 30 individuals of a species were caught in a replicate of any gear type, a batchsampling procedure was utilized. First, the standard length and weight was measured for 30randomly selected individuals within the species. Second, the batch weight was measured for100 additional randomly selected individuals. Finally, the total weight was measured for all ofthe remaining, uncounted individuals caught in the replicate. The number of uncountedindividuals was then estimated using the batch weight of the 100 randomly selected individuals.All survey data were initially recorded in the field on hard copy data sheets and later transferredto a digital database and checked for accuracy.Due to the difficulty of rapidly and conclusively distinguishing between small arrow goby(Clevelandia ios) and shadow goby (Quietula y-cauda) in the field, gobies that may havebelonged to either species were identified as "arrow/shadow goby complex". These functionallysimilar species commonly co-occur and occupy similar niches in the demersal fish community.Vouchers of the gobies collected were brought back to the lab for identification to document theactual species present at a given station.All macroinvertebrates captured in the fish sampling nets were collected, identified to the lowesttaxonomic level possible, counted, and released. Due to the tremendous spatial variability ofthese species and the non-targeted methodology employed here to sample them, collected datawere intended to generate a list of species that occur in the project area, rather than to providedefinitive density and biomass data on their populations.At each study location, physical water quality parameters were measured coincident with thebiological sampling described above. A Hydrolab Quanta ® multi-probe, calibrated in accordancewith manufacturer specifications, was used to collect temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity,and salinity data. Readings were taken near the bottom and top of the water column.ResultsA total of 37 fish species were captured in 2009 quarterly fish sampling, bringing the totalnumber of species captured during the monitoring program (2007-2009) to 47. The samplingresults are presented below by sampling area: Full Tidal Basin (FTB), Muted Tidal Basins(MTBs), and Muted Pocket Marsh (MPM). A summary of the species captured throughout themonitoring program is presented in Appendix 1-D.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 38

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFull Tidal BasinTable 1-3 provides a summary of total abundance (# individuals) of fish captured in the FTBwithin all replicates of all gear types during the 2009 sampling intervals. A total of 36 species offish were captured in the FTB in 2009 (Table 1-3). Atherinids were the most abundant species inthe FTB, with topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) representing 51% of the total catch and Californiagrunion (Leuresthes tenuis) representing 39%. Nearly all of the grunion were captured in thethree purse seine hauls at Station 2 in July 2009. The majority of topsmelt were captured atStations 1 and 2 in July 2009 as well.At Station 1, in the northern portion of the FTB, 31 species were captured with topsmelt makingup 87% of the total catch. Shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata) were the second mostabundant, accounting for 6% of the total catch. California grunion and staghorn sculpin(Leptocottus armatus) accounted for 3% and 1% of the total catch, respectively. The remainingspecies made up less than 1% of the total catch each at Station 1.At Station 2, in the southern portion of the FTB, 27 species were captured with Californiagrunion and topsmelt dominating the catch (65% and 26% of the total catch, respectively).Cheekspot gobies (Ilypnus gilberti) comprised 2% of the total catch. The remaining speciesmade up less than 2% of the total catch at Station 2.Six elasmobranch species were captured in the FTB in 2009, all in April and July and in greaterabundance at Station 1. Bat rays (Myliobatis californica) were the most abundant (Table 1-3),followed by round stingray (Urobatis halleri).Very few anchovy were captured within the FTB: 6 northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) and27 deepbody anchovy (Anchoa compressa). Similarly, California killifish (Fundulus parvipinis)were present in much lower numbers than in 2008, with only 13 individuals captured within thetwo FTB stations. Other species captured in small numbers included bay pipefish (Syngnathusleptorhynchus), the majority of which were captured at Station 2 where eelgrass is moreextensive, and three species of bass (Paralabrax sp.), the majority of which were juvenilescaptured in the July sampling period. Four species of croaker and three species of surfperchwere captured during 2009, with yellowfin croaker (Umbrina roncador) and shiner surfperchoccasionally caught in high numbers. In addition toCalifornia halibut (Paralichthys californicus) and diamondturbot (Pleuronichthys guttulatus), an additional flatfishspecies was captured in 2009: a single speckled sanddab(Citharichthys stigmaeus) captured at Station 2. FiveCalifornia needlefish (Strongylura exilis) were captured inJuly at Station 2, though they are more frequently observedfrom the boat at the warmer Station 1. No striped mullet(Mugil cephalus) were captured in the FTB but wereAdult California halibut in the FTB. regularly observed in schools in the shallows along theriprap of the basin and in the inlet.Gobies were captured in the beach seine at both Stations 1 and 2. The density of gobies isconsiderably underrepresented because large numbers were often observed swimming out of theseine bag as it was pulled up onto shore. Their slippery texture, active nature, and narrow bodiesMerkel & Associates, Inc. 39

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-3. Summary of total fish abundance (# of individuals) for the Full Tidal Basin in 2009.2009 January 2009April 2009July 2009Grand Grand Station 1 (North) Station 2 (South) Station 1 (North) Station 2 (South) Station 1 (North) Station 2 (South)Total Total Beach Otter Purse Beach Otter Purse Beach Otter Purse Beach Otter Purse Beach Otter Purse Beach Otter PurseSpeciesStation 1 Station 2 Seine* Trawl Seine Seine Trawl Seine Seine Trawl Seine Seine Trawl Seine Seine Trawl Seine Seine Trawl SeineLeopard Shark 3 0 1 1 1Gray Smoothound 1 1 1 1Thornback 1 0 1Bat Ray 11 4 1 10 1 3Round Stingray 10 3 3 1 2 1 3 3California Butterfly Ray 1 0 1Pacific Sardine 1 0 1Northern Anchovy 6 0 6Deepbody Anchovy 13 14 4 9 14Anchoa , unidentified juvenile 5 0 5California Needlefish 0 5 5California Killifish 3 10 3 1 7 2California Grunion 94 3,038 4 18 90 3,020Jacksmelt 1 0 1Topsmelt 2,920 1,201 36 223 142 40 79 145 41 202 1,599 838 405 371Atherinid, unidentified juvenile 3 14 3 14Bay Pipefish 1 55 30 1 1 2 8 1 12 1Staghorn Sculpin 17 18 5 3 12 14 1Kelp Bass 3 10 3 4 3 1 2Spotted Sand Bass 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1Barred Sand Bass 1 3 1 1 1 1Queenfish 2 0 2Yellowfin Croaker 4 45 1 2 1 45Black Croaker 1 0 1California Corbina 1 3 1 3Opaleye 0 19 13 6Black Surfperch 1 1 1 1Walleye Surfperch 0 8 8Shiner Surfperch 219 65 4 52 219 7 2Bay Blenny 0 6 1 1 2 2Giant Kelpfish 9 24 2 10 2 9 6 4Longjaw Mudsucker 3 0 3Cheekspot Goby 7 88 1 1 7 86Arrow/Shadow Goby complex 16 12 15 12 1Gobiidae, unidentified juvenile 0 1 1Speckled Sanddab 0 1 1California Halibut 8 2 1 1 1 6 1Diamond Turbot 5 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 1Total Abundance (individuals) 3,372 4,660 48 0 229 178 8 54 114 7 172 99 34 272 1,625 12 1,165 535 22 3,458Area Sampled (m 2 ) 7,680 8,222 605 800 1,040 1,068 800 1,040 698 800 1,040 760 800 1,040 857 800 1,040 874 800 1,040* only 2 large beach seine replicates collected at Station 1 in January 2009Merkel & Associates, Inc. 40

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportallow them to align with the net mesh and escape more easily than the other species. Both arrowand shadow gobies were captured in FTB.The total mass (g) of fish captured for all replicatesand gear types within the FTB during 2009 ispresented in Table 1-4. A total of 54 kilograms(kg) of fish was captured at Station 1, 81% ofwhich was made up of elasmobranchs, with bat ray(Myliobatis californica), leopard shark (Triakissemifasciata), and California butterfly ray(Gymnura marmorata) each accounting forapproximately 25% of the total mass. Thebutterfly ray was a single large adult. Topsmelt,yellowfin croaker, California corbina(Menticirrhus undulatus), shiner surfperch, andCalifornia halibut contributed more than 1% eachto overall mass at Station 1. A smaller total massCa. butterfly ray being release after being measured.of 34 kg was captured at Station 2, dominated by topsmelt (23%), yellowfin croaker (23%), andbat ray (14%).It is important to note when reviewing these tables that survey intensity varied slightly betweenstations due to variations in large beach seine haul sizes, so direct comparisons of totalabundance and mass between stations and quarters should be made carefully. In addition, thesampling biases between gear types preclude a detailed analysis of lumped abundance and massdata. To standardize for the area sampled and to allow direct comparisons in density andbiomass between stations and sampling quarters, Figure 1-7 presents the mean density(individuals/m 2 ) by gear by quarter for each station. Figure 1-8 presents mean biomass (g/m 2 ) bygear by quarter for each station. The results of the sampling in Years 1 and 2 are included aswell.Figure 1-7 illustrates a general seasonal trend in fish density, with the greatest densities of fishoccurring during summer or early fall sampling intervals and lowest densities occurring duringthe winter sampling intervals. This trend is particularly apparent for the large seine gear, andprimarily reflects seasonal variations in topsmelt and goby abundance. Summer reproductiveand recruitment events for these species are reflected in the higher July and October large seinedensities. Additionally, Station 1 had greater large seine densities during the peak months,suggesting more intensive use of the upper portion of the FTB by topsmelt in the summermonths. Of note, the peak in Station 1 large seine density in October 2008 was due to thecapture of large numbers of California killifish in addition to large numbers of topsmelt.Demersal and eelgrass-associated fish density as assessed by the otter trawl was initially similarat both stations, but became consistently higher at Station 2 beginning in October 2008 (Figure1-7, Table 1-3). The higher density at Station 2, which is located closer to the inlet, wasaccounted for by structure-associated species found in well-circulated waters such as giantkelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus), opaleye (Girella nigricans), shiner surfperch, bay blenny(Hypsoblennius gentilis), bay pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus), and the sand bassesMerkel & Associates, Inc. 41

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-4. Summary of total fish mass (g) for the Full Tidal Basin in 2009.GrandTotalStation 12009GrandTotalStation 2January 2009Station 1 (North) Station 2 (South)April 2009Station 1 (North)Station 2 (South)July 2009Station 1 (North)Station 2 (South)SpeciesBeachSeineOtterTrawlPurseSeineBeachSeineOtterTrawlPurseSeineBeachSeineOtterTrawlPurseSeineBeachSeineOtterTrawlPurseSeineBeachSeineOtterTrawlPurseSeineBeachSeineOtterTrawlPurseSeineLeopard Shark 13,341.0 0.0 371.0 10,000.0 2,970.0Gray Smoothound 283.0 1,800.0 283.0 1,800.0Thornback 811.0 0.0 811.0Bat Ray 13,650.0 4,620.0 1,900.0 11,750.0 375.0 4,245.0Round Stingray 2,601.0 778.0 612.0 214.0 479.0 299.0 1,265.0 510.0California Butterfly Ray 13,000.0 0.0 13,000.0Pacific Sardine 43.0 0.0 43.0Northern Anchovy 5.2 0.0 5.2Deepbody Anchovy 181.2 90.9 41.5 139.7 90.9Anchoa , unidentified juvenile 0.5 0.0 0.5California Needlefish 0.0 1,039.0 1,039.0California Killifish 9.7 51.8 9.7 3.2 44.0 4.6California Grunion 51.0 2,078.3 2.4 3.6 48.6 2,074.7Jacksmelt 312.0 0.0 312.0Topsmelt 3,709.4 7,771.6 6.1 164.6 1,785.6 67.0 240.8 132.1 167.5 2,010.8 1,878.8 1,287.0 675.5 3,065.2Atherinid, unidentified juvenile 0.3 1.4 0.3 1.4Bay Pipefish 0.1 107.9 16.0 27.0 0.1 0.5 10.4 0.1 30.9 23.0Staghorn Sculpin 8.7 45.3 0.5 1.1 8.2 43.2 1.0Kelp Bass 113.0 151.6 5.7 12.8 113.0 0.1 133.0Spotted Sand Bass 123.0 1,008.0 55.0 245.0 147.0 123.0 138.0 423.0Barred Sand Bass 24.0 157.0 5.0 81.0 24.0 71.0Queenfish 4.0 0.0 4.0Yellowfin Croaker 1,104.0 7,655.0 142.0 831.0 131.0 7,655.0Black Croaker 55.0 0.0 55.0California Corbina 1,400.0 2,535.0 1,400.0 2,535.0Opaleye 0.0 1,107.6 411.6 696.0Black Surfperch 32.0 72.0 32.0 72.0Walleye Surfperch 0.0 467.0 467.0Shiner Surfperch 1,590.5 858.4 5.0 781.8 1,590.5 58.5 13.1Bay Blenny 0.0 66.6 8.1 8.5 17.0 33.0Giant Kelpfish 156.0 208.6 3.2 16.7 3.9 156.0 82.8 102.0Longjaw Mudsucker 1.8 0.0 1.8Cheekspot Goby 1.6 20.0 0.4 0.1 1.6 19.5Arrow/Shadow Goby complex 4.6 2.3 4.4 2.3 0.2Gobiidae, unidentified juvenile 0.0 0.1 0.1Speckled Sanddab 0.0 10.1 10.1California Halibut 970.0 99.0 63.0 121.0 68.0 786.0 31.0Diamond Turbot 45.7 797.5 224.0 9.6 1.5 169.0 8.1 28.0 403.0Total Mass (g) 53,632 33,600 1,417 0 477 1,861 515 68 548 15,717 13,509 266 1,134 8,148 13,319 2,266 6,379 1,439 2,000 18,170Area Sampled (m 2 ) 7,955 8,333 729 800 1,040 991 800 1,040 884 800 1,040 969 800 1,040 822 800 1,040 853 800 1,040Merkel & Associates, Inc. 42

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report2.500Large Beach SeineFish density (indiv/m 2 )2.0001.5001.0000.5000.000Oct 07 Jan 08 Apr 08 Jul 08 Oct 08 Jan 09 Apr 09 Jul 09Fish density (indiv/m 2 )0.0300.0250.0200.0150.0100.005Station 1 (North)Station 2 (South)Otter Trawl0.000Oct 07 Jan 08 Apr 08 Jul 08 Oct 08 Jan 09 Apr 09 Jul 093.600Purse SeineFish density (indiv/m 2 )3.0002.4001.8001.2000.6000.000Oct 07 Jan 08 Apr 08 Jul 08 Oct 08 Jan 09 Apr 09 Jul 09Figure 1-7. Mean fish density (individuals/m 2 ) by quarter for large beach seine, otter trawl, and purseseine at Stations 1 and 2 in the Full Tidal Basin (note variable y-axis scales between charts)Merkel & Associates, Inc. 43

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report20.0Large Beach SeineFish biomass (g/m2 )16.012.08.04.00.0Oct 07 Jan 08 Apr 08 Jul 08 Oct 08 Jan 09 Apr 09 Jul 09Fish biomass (g/m2 )7.06.05.04.03.02.0Station 1 (North)Station 2 (South)Otter Trawl1.00.0Oct 07 Jan 08 Apr 08 Jul 08 Oct 08 Jan 09 Apr 09 Jul 0920.0Purse SeineFish biomass (g/m2 )16.012.08.04.00.0Oct 07 Jan 08 Apr 08 Jul 08 Oct 08 Jan 09 Apr 09 Jul 09Figure 1-8. Mean fish biomass (g/m 2 ) by quarter for large beach seine, otter trawl, and purse seine atStations 1 and 2 in the Full Tidal Basin (note variable y-axis scales between charts).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 44

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report(Paralabrax sp.). In contrast, demersal species at the warmer, less circulated Station 1 wereprimarily elasmobranchs and California halibut.The purse seine yielded the greatest overall densities during the 2009 sampling year. Trends inthe purse seine data were driven primarily by the number of atherinids (topsmelt and grunion)captured (which made up over 90% of the total purse seine catch in 2009). The high densitycalculated in July 2009 was due to the capture of large numbers of grunion during their summerreproductive period.Figure 1-8 presents the mean biomass (g/m 2 ) of fish by gear by quarter for each station. Unlikedensity, the biomass for each sampling period frequently reflects catches of a small number oflarge individual fish. These large individuals dominate the mass measured at each station andmask typical seasonal variation. Biomass in the large beach seine was consistently higher atStation 1 than 2 due the regular capture of relatively large elasmobranches (sharks and rays).The July 2009 peak in biomass was due to the capture of a single leopard shark. High biomassvalues in the prior July resulted from the capture of multiple gray smoothhound, round stingray,and California butterfly ray.Fish biomass in the otter trawl was highest in April and July surveys, when larger and moreabundant California halibut, diamond turbot, round stingray, and California butterfly ray werecaptured. The peak in April 2009 at Station 1 reflects the capture of the single large butterfly raydescribed previously. Otter trawl biomass was generally higher at Station 1 than 2, again due tothe larger size of the demersal species captured at Station 1.Biomass in the purse seine was highest in April and July and reflected the seasonal capture oflarge numbers of topsmelt and grunion, in addition to bat rays and yellowfin croaker at Station 1.The purse seine is capable of capturing large schools of atherinids and, thus, biomass for thisgear type is more indicative of anticipated seasonal trends.The water quality conditions for all stations at the time of each sampling event are presented inTable 1-5. All parameters measured in the FTB indicated a well-flushed system, with nearoceanicsalinities, and warmer temperatures at Station 1 than 2, except in January, whentemperatures at the stations were equivalent. Dissolved oxygen was always greater than 5.7mg/L and as high as 10.6 mg/L in the basin.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 45

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-5. Water quality measurements taken during quarterly fish sampling in 2009.January 2009StationMonitoringQuarterDateSamplingEventStrata Time Depth(m)Merkel & Associates, Inc. 46Temp(°C)DissolvedOxygenSalinity(ppt)Turbidity(NTU)1 Jan-09 1/7/2009 BS Surface 11:45 0.1 14.6 10.6 32.3 1.6Jan-09 1/7/2009 BS Bottom 11:46 0.6 12.7 8.1 32.5 1.9Jan-09 1/12/2009 PS/OT Surface 12:10 0.3 13.2 8.0 33.8 2.9Jan-09 1/12/2009 PS/OT Bottom 12:15 2.4 13.0 8.3 33.8 5.72 Jan-09 1/7/2009 BS Surface 12:48 0.1 14.2 8.9 32.6 2.9Jan-09 1/7/2009 BS Bottom 12:49 0.9 14.0 9.0 32.7 6.5Jan-09 1/12/2009 PS/OT Surface 12:24 0.3 13.6 8.0 33.5 0.9Jan-09 1/12/2009 PS/OT Bottom 12:25 2.2 13.3 8.0 33.6 0.1MPM Jan-09 1/7/2009 BS Surface 9:19 0.1 11.7 6.3 31.7 9.7Jan-09 1/7/2009 BS Bottom 9:20 0.8 15.3 6.2 29.9 9.7WMTB 1 Jan-09 1/8/2009 BS Midwater 9:15 0.4 12.8 8.8 32.6 1.3WMTB 2 Jan-09 1/8/2009 BS Midwater 9:00 0.5 11.0 6.2 32.4 27.9WMTB 3 Jan-09 1/8/2009 BS Midwater 9:32 0.2 12.1 3.9 32.6 7.0CMTB 1 Jan-09 1/8/2009 BS Midwater 10:30 0.1 13.2 9.1 39.1 4.0CMTB 2 Jan-09 1/8/2009 BS Midwater 10:21 0.2 12.9 10.2 40.0 7.2CMTB 3 Jan-09 1/8/2009 BS Midwater 9:51 0.3 13.0 9.6 45.0 13.0April 2009Station Monitoring Date Sampling Strata Time Depth Temp Dissolved Salinity Turbidity1 Apr-09 4/20/2009 BS Midwater 13:20 0.3 22.3 7.6 34.7 5.0Apr-09 4/24/2009 PS/OT Surface 10:52 0.2 18.7 6.1 34.7 7.1Apr-09 4/24/2009 PS/OT Bottom 10:55 1.0 19.1 5.7 35.0 7.72 Apr-09 4/20/2009 BS Midwater 14:15 0.2 22.8 10.4 34.4 0.0Apr-09 4/24/2009 PS/OT Surface 10:42 0.2 14.5 8.1 34.1 1.7Apr-09 4/24/2009 PS/OT Bottom 10:45 1.5 14.3 8.7 34.1 1.7MPM Apr-09 4/20/2009 BS Midwater 10:30 0.1 21.1 6.1 34.5 0.0WMTB 1 Apr-09 4/29/2009 BS Midwater 1:00 0.5 20.0 5.4 39.0 25.0WMTB 2 Apr-09 4/29/2009 BS Midwater 12:10 0.5 22.4 15.0 64.0 103.0WMTB 3 Apr-09 4/29/2009 BS Midwater 9:15 0.1 16.1 3.0 40.0 30.0CMTB 1 Apr-09 4/29/2009 BS Midwater 10:30 0.6 19.7 7.4 74.0 0.6CMTB 2 Apr-09 4/29/2009 BS Midwater 11:15 0.2 21.2 12.0 72.0 119.0CMTB 3 Apr-09 4/29/2009 BS Midwater 10:00 0.2 17.3 9.0 17.0 0.2July 2009Station Monitoring Date Sampling Strata Time Depth Temp Dissolved Salinity Turbidity1 Jul-09 7/23/2009 BS Midwater 10:22 0.2 23.3 6.2 34.3 2.0Jul-09 7/21/2009 PS/OT Surface 12:04 0.2 23.6 6.2 34.6 2.4Jul-09 7/21/2009 PS/OT Bottom 12:06 2.0 23.5 6.4 34.6 2.72 Jul-09 7/23/2009 BS Midwater 8:45 0.2 22.2 5.7 34.1 0.9Jul-09 7/21/2009 PS/OT Surface 11:57 0.2 20.8 8.0 34.0 0.0Jul-09 7/21/2009 PS/OT Bottom 12:01 2.3 20.3 7.9 33.9 0.0MPM Jul-09 7/23/2009 BS Midwater 12:15 0.3 29.6 11.3 36.1 3.0WMTB 1 Jul-09 8/12/2009 BS Mid 11:45 0.1 23.1 4.7 36.5 10.0WMTB 2 Jul-09 8/12/2009 BS Mid 11:30 0.3 31.4 1.3 40.0 100.0WMTB 3 Jul-09 8/12/2009 BS Mid 11:00 0.1 21.2 3.0 40.6 47.0CMTB 1 Jul-09 8/12/2009 BS Mid 9:30 0.2 23.6 2.0 74.0 75.0CMTB 2 Jul-09 8/12/2009 BS Mid 10:15 0.2 23.3 2.3 74.0 94.0CMTB 3 Jul-09 8/12/2009 BS Mid 10:30 0.2 23.8 3.7 66.0 100.0MPM = Muted Pocket MarshWMTB or CMTB = West or Central Muted Tidal BasinBS = Beach seinePS/OT = Purse seine/Otter trawl

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMuted Tidal BasinsThe Muted Tidal Basins were sampled with the smallbeach seine as described in the methods section above,with variations in effort each quarter based on conditionswithin each basin. The area and water depth sampledwas highly variable between quarters due to fluctuatingwater levels. In some cases, unvegetated shoreline wasnot exposed to pull the net up onto at the sampling site,so the net had to be lifted up prior to shorelinevegetation, which reduced sampling of fish right alongthe shoreline. Hauls were often filled with dead plantdebris from decaying pickleweed that was permanentlyinundated by the introduction of tidal waters or heavyrainfall.Beach seining the central MTB.To date, a total of eleven fish species have been captured in the west MTB and seven have beencaptured in the central MTB (Table 1-6). From July 2008 to July 2009, the abundance andproportion of total catch by species were nearly the same in both basins. Juvenile topsmelt andCalifornia killifish were the most commonly captured species each quarter, and accounted for33% and 34% of the 2009 total catch, respectively. Gobies were abundant primarily in July2009, but still accounted for 22% of the total 2009 catch. Both arrow and shadow gobies werecaptured, and the first occurrence of the non-native yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus)was documented in April 2009 in the west MTB. In 2008 and 2009, the central MTB was notopen to the FTB for any length of time, just periodically for a few minutes or up to one day.Table 1-6. Summary of total fish abundance (# of individuals) in the Muted Tidal Basins in 2008 and2009.Apr 2008 July 2008 October 2008 January 2009 April 2009 July 2009SpeciesWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCalifornia Killifish 14 68 12 49 19 66 32Topsmelt 2 76 26 168 301 78 34 49 4 9Atherinid, unidentified juvenile 120Bay Pipefish 1Barred Pipefish 1Staghorn Sculpin 3 8 1Striped Mullet 1Longjaw Mudsucker 1 2 5 33 2 4 5Cheekspot Goby 12 3 15 17Arrow/Shadow Goby complex 8 1 8 74Yellowfin Goby 1Gobiidae, unidentified juvenile 1Total Abundance (individuals) 145 77 30 185 376 78 12 147 164 74 46Area Sampled (m 2 ) 126 155 310 170 129 161 253 138 138 110 106The water quality conditions at the time of each 2009 sampling are presented in Table 1-5.Salinity in the west MTB, which received muted tidal influence from the FTB, was generallysimilar to the FTB at the replicate collected near the water control structure inlet. The secondand third replicates were further removed from the inlet (Figure 1-6) and experienced highersalinities at times when the areas became isolated from the tidal channels (up to 64 ppt in April2009). Hypersaline conditions existed in the central MTB in April and July 2009 (up to 74 ppt inJuly 2009), where water from the FTB only seeps in near the water control structure inlet.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 47

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportDissolved oxygen was variable and dependent on the degree of water circulation at the time ofsampling. DO was consistently low in both the west and central MTBs in July 2009 (as low as1.3 mg/L in the west MTB).The total mass of the fish captured in the MTBs during each sampling interval is presented inTable 1-7. Adult longjaw mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis), California killifish, and topsmelt(primarily juveniles) accounted for 54%, 41%, and 12%, respectively, of the total mass capturedduring the 2009 sampling year.Table 1-7. Summary of total fish mass (g) in the Muted Tidal Basins in 2008 and 2009.Apr 2008 July 2008 October 2008 January 2009 April 2009 July 2009SpeciesWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCentralMTBWestMTBCalifornia Killifish 33.5 14.7 1.8 167.9 6.8 31.2 7.8Topsmelt 8.0 70.2 12.8 207.7 342.3 75.1 44.4 12.4 1.7 4.4Atherinid, unidentified juvenile 12.0Bay Pipefish 2.4Barred Pipefish 0.1Staghorn Sculpin 10.7 36.7 3.8Striped Mullet 0.3Longjaw Mudsucker 4.8 13.1 117.8 464.2 2.7 21.7 31.6Cheekspot Goby 2.8 1.1 8.6 4.0Arrow/Shadow Goby complex 2.9 0.4 3.3 26.3Yellowfin Goby 0.5Gobiidae, unidentified juvenile 0.1Total Mass (g) 36.4 75.0 28.7 242.3 475.2 75.1 1.8 725.1 56.6 54.6 43.8Area Sampled (m 2 ) 126 155 310 170 129 161 253 138 138 110 106Muted Pocket MarshThe Muted Pocket Marsh was sampled with the large beach seine and was generally found to below in diversity but high in abundance of a few species including topsmelt, and Californiakillifish. These ecological important species provide forage for numerous avian species and theMPM provides a valuable fish breeding and recruitment area. A total of ten species have beencaptured in the MPM since monitoring was initiated (Table 1-8). In April 2009, large mats offilamentous green algae (Enteromorpha and Ulva) were in the water column, preventing the netfrom maintaining contact with the bottom. Each haul was heavily filled with the algae and it isbelieved that the wall of algae preceding the net signaled its approach and led to avoidance bymany fish. The area sampled was also reduced in an attempt to avoid the densest areas of algae.For these reasons, the April sampling likely did not accurately represent the abundance ofdemersal fish and invertebrates, or some schooling fish that avoided the net.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 48

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-8. Summary of total fish abundance (# of individuals) in the Muted Pocket Marsh in 2008 and2009.January April July October January April JulySpecies2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009California Killifish 6 47 879 88 2 30 1,378Topsmelt 190 82 591 293 6 2,188 147Bay Pipefish 4Staghorn Sculpin 1 18 1 7Longjaw Mudsucker 1 58 1 30Cheekspot Goby 10 19Yellowfin Goby 4 4Arrow/Shadow Goby complex 18 11 1 77 1Diamond Turbot 3 5Total Abundance (individuals) 200 185 1,539 382 9 2,326 1,560Area Sampled (m 2 ) 1,301 1,206 938 1,301 657 658 967Looking northwest at the Muted Pocket Marsh.Topsmelt was the most abundant species in mostquarters, accounting for 57% of the total catch in the2009 sampling year. California killifish, mostabundant in July 2009, accounted for 36% of thetotal catch during 2009. Other species captured in2009 included staghorn sculpin, longjaw mudsucker,and arrow and shadow gobies. Non-native yellowfingobies were occasionally captured each year. A baypipefish was captured for the first time in July 2009.The total mass of fish captured in the Muted PocketMarsh is presented in Table 1-9. Topsmelt accounted for 55% of the total mass and Californiakillifish accounted for 37% of the total mass during 2009. Trends in mass reflect the increasingsize of the topsmelt throughout the year, with the largest individuals captured in October.Table 1-9. Summary of total fish mass (g) in the Muted Pocket Marsh in 2008 and 2009.January April July October January April JulySpecies2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009California Killifish 0.9 28.2 364.5 57.4 0.2 92.5 890.3Topsmelt 235.1 231.9 1,213.3 2,205.3 3.0 943.9 521.4Bay Pipefish 2.9Staghorn Sculpin 0.1 46.6 0.8 36.7Longjaw Mudsucker 46.0 169.2 21.2 106.9Cheekspot Goby 3.3 7.0Yellowfin Goby 1.6 3.8Arrow/Shadow Goby complex 4.4 10.2 1.2 34.5 2.0Diamond Turbot 1.3 26.8Total Mass (g) 237 389 1,757 2,264 4 1,140 1,524Area Sampled (m 2 ) 1,301 1,206 938 1,301 657 658 967The water quality conditions at the time of each 2009 sampling event in the Muted Pocket Marshare presented in Table 1-5. This basin experiences wide fluctuations in temperature due to itsshallow depth and restricted circulation from Outer Bolsa Bay through the tide gates. In January2009, the water temperature was lower on the surface of the MPM than at all other sites, thenMerkel & Associates, Inc. 49

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportreached highs around 30°C in July. In 2009, the salinity ranged between 29.9 ppt in January and36.1 ppt in July. Dissolved oxygen in the MPM ranged from 6.1 mg/L in April to 11.3 mg/L inJuly.Fish LengthThe minimum and maximum standard length of each fish species captured in 2009 is presentedin Table 1-10. Of all 37 fish species captured in 2009, all but five were represented to somedegree by juveniles. Species captured only as mature individuals were California butterfly ray,Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax caeruleus), California needlefish, jacksmelt, and Californiacorbina.EpifaunaThe epifaunal invertebrates captured in the fishingnets in 2009 and in prior years are presented inTable 1-11 by station and sampling quarter (allreplicates combined). In the Full Tidal Basin, themost commonly captured species were Californiagreen shrimp (Hippolyte californiensis), bubblesnail (Bulla gouldiana), Pacific calico scallop(Argopecten ventricosus), navanax (Navanaxinermis), and American slipper limpet (Crepidulafornicata). The 2009 monitoring year marked thefirst observation of echinoderms, with the captureWhite sea urchin and sand dollar in the FTB.of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) and white sea urchin (Lytechinus anamesus). Five ofthe six non-native species previously identified in 2008 (as indicated in the table by an asterisk)were also captured in 2009 monitoring. The Japanese mussel (Musculista senhousia), a highlyinvasive non-native mussel present in many California bays and estuaries, was not detected in2009 (though likely present).Malacoplax californiensis in the FTB.Of interest was the capture of the burrowing crab(Malacoplax californiensis) at Station 1 in July 2009.Information on the distribution of this species islimited. Jensen (1995) remarked that this crab was“Reportedly common in the early part of this century[20 th century], this small crab now appears to bevirtually extinct in the U.S." Due to the rarity of thespecies, the specimen was photographed and releasedalive.In the Muted Pocket Marsh, various tunicates and California horn snail (Cerithidea californica)were the dominant invertebrates. In the central and west Muted Tidal Basins tunicates and shorecrabs (Hemigrapsus oregonensis) were the primary invertebrates captured.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 50

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-10. Minimum and maximum standard length (mm) of all fish species captured by quarter at allstations in 2009.January 2009 April 2009 July 2009SpeciesMinimumSL (mm)MaximumSL (mm)MinimumSL (mm)MaximumSL (mm)MinimumSL (mm)MaximumSL (mm)Leopard Shark 465 465 890 1350Gray Smoothound 472 760Thornback 498 498Bat Ray (wing length) 190 350 230 305Round Stingray (disk length) 135 185 135 230California Butterfly Ray 730 730Pacific Sardine 142 142Northern Anchovy 36 51Deepbody Anchovy 89 97 71 116Anchoa , unidentified juvenile 29 32California Needlefish 430 543California Killifish 11 58 8 76 16 74California Grunion 17 52 20 62Jacksmelt 325 325Topsmelt 15 158 10 150 14 127Atherinid, unidentified juvenile 14 22Bay Pipefish 49 205 47 172 58 365Staghorn Sculpin 14 34 15 95Kelp Bass 46 52 46 62 15 145Spotted Sand Bass 135 153 180 180 172 250Barred Sand Bass 58 58 145 145 102 137Queenfish 35 50Yellowfin Croaker 185 305 120 260Black Croaker 105 105California Corbina 450 450 390 490Opaleye 33 158Black Surfperch 90 118Walleye Surfperch 88 140Shiner Surfperch 34 120 43 95Bay Blenny 76 76 71 71 35 94Giant Kelpfish 45 78 68 168Longjaw Mudsucker 39 137 28 96Cheekspot Goby 32 32 11 49 15 31Yellowfin Goby 25 45Arrow/Shadow Goby complex 14 50 38 50Gobiidae, unidentified juvenile 11 15Speckled Sanddab 81 81California Halibut 150 191 120 237Diamond Turbot 191 191 17 178 65 249Merkel & Associates, Inc. 51

Table 1-11. Counts of epibenthic invertebrates captured in fishing gear.January 2009 April 2009 July 2009Phylum Taxa Common name Sta 1 Sta 2 MPM CMTB Sta 1 Sta 2 MPM WMTB Sta 1 Sta 2 MPM CMTBPhylum Arthropoda Balanus sp. Barnacle 1Crangon franciscorum California Bay ShrimpHippolyte californiensis California Green Shrimp 301 20 60Hippolyte clarkiKelp Humpback ShrimpPalaemon macrodactylus* Oriental Shrimp 1Pandalus sp.Pink ShrimpPenaeus californicus Brown ShrimpPortunus xantusii Swimming Crab 2 6 2Pugettia producta Shield-backed Kelp Crab 7 2Pyromaia tuberculata American Spider Crab 1 1 1Pachygrapsus crassipes Lined Shore CrabLophopanopeus bellus Black-clawed CrabMalacoplax californiensis Burrowing Crab 1Hemigrapsus oregonensis Yellow Shore Crab 38Family Paguridae Hermit CrabsCancer sp. Crab 1Phylum Chordata Order Ascidiacea Solitary Tunicate 5 2 139 6 332 1Order Ascidiacea Colonial Tunicate 1Styela clava* Rough Sea Squirt 2Styela plicata* Leathery Tunicate 1 1 2 4Phylum Cnidaria Aurelia sp. Moon JellyfishPolyorchis sp. Bell Jelly 1 2Phylum Ctenophora Phylum Ctenophora Comb JellyPhylum Echinoderm Dendraster excentricus Sand Dollar 1 1Lytechinus anamesus White Sea Urchin 1Phylum Ectoprocta Phylum Ectoprocta BryozoanBugula sp. Bryozoan presentLichenopora sp. Bryozoan presentZoobotryon verticillatum* BryozoanPhylum Mollusca Bulla gouldiana Bubble Snail 1 2 1 93 2 4 11Aplysia californica Brown Sea Hare 4Melibe leonina Lion's Melibe 1Cerithidea californica California Horn Snail 13 13 530Gastropteron pacificum Pacific Stomach WingNavanax inermis Navanax 25 11 3Navanax inermis eggs NavanaxArgopecten ventricosus Pacific Calico Scallop 5 2 7 42Laevicardium substriatum Egg CockleLyonsia californica California LyonsiaPolycera atra Black Dorid 2Tellina sp.ClamProtothaca sp.ClamChione sp.ClamOstreola conchaphila California Oyster 6 4 9 2Mytilus galloprovincialis* Mediterranean Mussel 1 12 4 1Musculista senhousia* Japanese MusselCrepidula fornicata American Slipper Limpet 4 14 21Nassarius tegula Covered-lip Nassa 1 1 1 4 1Kelletia kelleti Kellet's Whelk 2Octopus bimaculoides Two-spot Octopus 1 1Phylum Porifera Phylum Porifera Yellow Sponge 2Total 14 366 19 2 2 188 156 45 29 123 864 1* non-native species

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportDiscussionThe monitoring in 2009 documented the rapidly maturing fish community in the FTB. By theend of Year 3, 46 fish species had been captured. In comparison, three years after tidalcirculation was restored to Batiquitos Lagoon in 1997, a total of 59 species had been documentedusing similar, but more intensive, sampling techniques (Merkel & Associates 2009a).The northern portion of the Bolsa FTB is similar to other back bay environments, with a softmud bottom, limited vegetation, and higher summer water temperatures. The fish community inthis area is dominated by sharks and rays, and schooling topsmelt. The southern portion of theFTB is increasingly vegetated with eelgrass and developing a fish community typical of wellcirculatedwaters and structured habitats, with species such as croaker, surfperch, and kelpfish.California grunion were abundant in this area as well due to spawning on the beaches bothoutside and inside the inlet (on the sand shoal on the north side of the inlet).The creation of the FTB has increased the availability of important bay habitat, creatingopportunities for the establishment of uncommon species such as the burrowing crab discussedabove and improving southern California fisheries resources through its provision of nurseryfunctions for many marine fish.Nearly every fish species captured during the 2007, 2008, and 2009 monitoring was representedby juvenile size classes, demonstrating the role of the basin as nursery habitat for spawning orpost-larval dispersal. The eelgrass also provides nursery habitat for species such as topsmelt,which lay eggs on the eelgrass in estuaries and bays (Emmett et al. 1991). The creation ofshallow-water habitat rich with primary production supplies detritus-based and grazing-basedfood webs with energy. Ultimately, this energy is transferred to fish and used to supportincreased biomass and abundance in the basin. This increased production is also transferredoffshore with individuals that leave the basin.The secondary production within the FTB also supports other ecological communities within thesystem by providing a ready fisheries food source for consumption by avian and mammalianconsumers. The degree of avian consumption is directly measured with the current monitoringprogram; however, twenty-five bird species have been documented foraging for fish in the FTB.Piscivorous birds such as loons, cormorants, grebes, mergansers and herons are regularlyobserved consuming fish. In contrast, terns are rarely seen foraging in the FTB, as discussed inthe following avian chapter. It is notable that all species of anchovy, an important prey group forterns, were uncommon or absent in the FTB. Pipefish and juvenile topsmelt and grunion mayprovide an alternative food resource for terns, though offshore waters likely provide preferredforaging habitat.In the Muted Tidal Basins, restricted tidal influence and periodic water quality extremes limitedthe fish community to relatively hardy species in 2009. However, the presence of high numbersof topsmelt, California killifish, and gobies were reflected in the usage of these basins by ternsand wading marsh birds for foraging. Although the west MTB showed relatively stable waterquality, the central and east continued to experience fluctuations in temperature, salinity, anddissolved oxygen that limit the diversity of fish that can persist there. It is anticipated thatdiversity and distribution of fish will increase once all three basins are opened directly to theMerkel & Associates, Inc. 53

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFTB through the tide gates, allowing for more stable water quality, regular tidal flushing, andexchange of fish between the basins.The Muted Pocket Marsh continued to be a rich source of small fish for the many piscivorousbirds that use the marsh. It is key to note that the MPM is not hydrologically connected to theFTB of Bolsa Chica, rather it receives muted tidal influence through a water control structurefrom outer Bolsa Bay, through Huntington Harbour, which ultimately opens to the ocean over6.5 km (4 miles) to the northwest. It is anticipated that future sampling events may document afew additional species tolerant of lower salinities and limited tidal flushing, however, the mutedtidal conditions, the water control structure, and the distance from the ocean will limit thediversity and size of fish that ultimately make up the fish community of the marsh.The next monitoring is scheduled to occur in Year 5, with sampling events in October 2010, andJanuary, April, and July 2011.1.4. BENTHIC MONITORINGThe Monitoring Plan does not call for benthic invertebrate monitoring in Year 3 of the program.The next monitoring event will occur in Year 5.Although monitoring of terrestrial invertebrates is not part of the program, it is interesting to notethe utilization of Bolsa Chica mudflats and salt panne habitat by tiger beetles. During the courseof nesting bird surveys in July 2009, an M&A biologist observed two species of tiger beetle atthe north end of Nest Site 1. The two species observed were Cicindela trifasciata sigmoidea andCicindela hemorrhagica hemorrhagica. C. trifasciata was more common and was observed atroughly a 5:1 ratio with C. hemorrhagica hemorrhagica. Approximately 30 individuals wereobserved; however observations were made over a short period and were not part of focusedtiger beetle surveys. As a result, this number is likely an under-representation of the abundanceand the species present.Wetsalts tiger beetle Cicindela hemorrhagicaMudflat tiger beetle Cicindela trifasciata sigmoideaWhile this report covers data collected during the 2009 monitoring year, of note is the fact that athird species of tiger beetle, Cicindela latesignata, was observed in the mudflat habitat along theeastern shoreline of Nest Site 1 during 2010 field surveys. C. latesignata is a California SpeciesMerkel & Associates, Inc. 54

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportof Special Concern (CDFG 2011). Qualitative monitoring data for tiger beetles will be discussedfurther in the Year 4 monitoring report.1.5. WATER QUALITY MONITORINGThe Monitoring Plan does not call for water quality monitoring in Year 3 of the program. Thenext monitoring event will occur in Year 5.1.6. AVIAN MONITORINGGeneral Avian MonitoringIntroductionThe general avian monitoring program for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project wasdesigned to employ similar methodologies and survey units as those used in previous prerestorationbiological survey work. The Monitoring Plan calls for avian monitoring to beconducted once per month in monitoring Year 2, with no monitoring in Years 1 and 3. Reviewof other long-term avian monitoring program data, such as the Batiquitos Lagoon RestorationLong-Term Monitoring Program and the Port of Los Angeles/Port of Long Beach BiologicalBaseline Study, suggested that such closely spaced monitoring events may not providesignificantly more useful information on avian site-usage than quarterly or bi-monthly surveys.With review and concurrence by the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee and the California CoastalCommission, a revised monitoring schedule was adopted to conduct the surveys every othermonth, distributed over a period of two years (monitoring Years 2 and 3), for the same total of 12surveys. This approach is more likely to detect annual anomalies, capture natural inter-annualvariations in avian usage, and better document changes in distribution and site use patterns as therestored site matures.Merkel & Associates biologists conducted the avian surveys with assistance from a team ofbirders from Chambers Group, Inc.MethodologyStudy AreaThe study area for the general avian surveys at Bolsa Chica was divided into "zones" (differingfrom "stations" for the fish and benthic studies) (Figure 1-9). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceprovided the initial zone boundaries and numbering. The term zone is interchangeable with theterm cell, often used at Bolsa Chica when numbering the marsh units bounded by service roadsthroughout the site. The created Full Tidal Basin (FTB) was divided up into new zones asdescribed below.The Seasonal Ponds at the southeastern side of Bolsa Chica were divided into Zones 2 through13. These zones consist mainly of salt panne with small to extensive expanses of pickleweed,primarily along the slightly elevated zone boundaries. Portions are seasonally inundated withfresh to brackish water that becomes highly saline later as evaporation concentrates theremaining water over the salt panne.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 55

Full Tidal BasinFuture Full TidalMuted Pocket MarshPM506647Muted Tidal BasinsSeasonal Ponds494846686945Cordgrass Bench42414039387063713037722919312832333435142027212625362224913231273102110 100 200 400 600 800MetersμAvian ZonesBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 1-9Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportZones 14 through 40 and Zone 63 (Future Full Tidal Basin) occur between the Seasonal Pondsand the Muted Tidal Basin and include Freeman Creek. These zones are very similar to theSeasonal Ponds and consist mainly of salt panne and pickleweed, although there are some areasthat retain water year-round. Zone 36 is primarily a freshwater marsh. Zones 41 through 50 andZone 66 (Muted Tidal Basin) occupy the northeastern section of Bolsa Chica. These zonesgenerally contain less salt panne, with broad expanses of pickleweed. Zones 49, 50, 66, and aportion of 48 were exposed to muted tidal influence in March 2008. The other zones of theMuted Tidal Basins were inundated by tidal overflow and rainwater for much of the year, butwere not open directly to the Full Tidal Basin. The portions of these zones closest to theresidential neighborhoods, particularly Zone 47, have an increased amount of weedy species.Zones 68 through 73 are located within the FTB and are subject to full tidal influence. Zone 68(Rabbit Island) is located on the western portion of the site between Inner Bolsa Bay and theFTB. This zone previously had more habitat diversity than most of the other zones, with saltmarsh, alkali marsh, and upland plant species. The introduction of tidal influence in August2006 resulted in the inundation of much of Rabbit Island during high spring tides, causing theexisting low elevation habitats to die off as the area transitioned into mudflats and low to middlemarsh habitats. Zone 69 borders Rabbit Island to the east. Zone 71 is the newly createdCalifornia least tern and western snowy plover nesting site: Nest Site 1 (NS1). Zone 71 is arelatively unvegetated, sandy strip that gently slopes towards the FTB. The remaining zonesinclude the intertidal mudflat shelf on the eastern shore and open water bounded by riprap alongthe shoreline.The Muted Pocket Marsh occurs north of Rabbit Island and is not hydrologically connected tothe Bolsa Chica Lowlands; rather it experiences a muted tidal influence through a restricted tidalinlet leading to Outer Bolsa Bay. This area is shallow intertidal and subtidal with salt marsh atthe higher elevations. The northern shore of the Muted Pocket Marsh is lined with largeeucalyptus trees that died when tidal influence was introduced. The dead trees that remainprovide abundant roosting and perching habitat for multiple bird species that use the marsh. TheMPM is a final survey zone.Survey MethodologyThe Muted Tidal Basins (MTB), Future Full Tidal Basin (FFTB), and Seasonal Ponds (Zones 1through 66) were surveyed on foot by teams of field biologists. The FTB (Zones 68 through 73)was surveyed by vehicle, with multiple stops to view and record birds on foot. Much of Zone 68was surveyed from the pedestrian foot trail and the Muted Pocket Marsh was surveyed on foot.The survey of Zone 71, which is a breeding colony for terns and shorebirds, was modifiedaccording to the season. The entire site was surveyed by foot except during the breeding season.During the breeding season the survey was adjusted to accommodate the nesting birds and wasoften viewed from both ends of the nest site. This was due to the large number of birds,including western snowy plover, elegant tern (Thalasseus elegans), black skimmer (Rynchopsniger), California least tern, royal tern (Thalasseus maximus), and Caspian tern (Hydroprognecaspia), that were nesting and rearing their young on Nest Site 1.Surveys began in October 2007 to mark the start of Year 2 of the monitoring program and werecontinued every other month for a 2-year period, ending in August 2009 (see Appendix 1-A forsurvey dates). Surveys were conducted over a two-day period at each survey interval in such aMerkel & Associates, Inc. 57

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportway as to minimize the possibility of double-counts between the two days. The FTB andSeasonal Ponds were normally surveyed the first day, and the Muted Pocket Marsh, FFTB, andMTBs surveyed the second day. The surveys were conducted during a tide low enough toexpose the mudflat on the eastern shore of the FTB, referred to often as the cordgrass bench,generally within a predicted oceanic tide range of +0.9 to +0.3m (+3 to +1 ft) NAVD88. At thistide, the shoals in the inlet of the FTB where large numbers of gulls, cormorants, and pelicansloaf in the afternoon were only minimally exposed. Additionally, maintenance dredging in theFTB from January to April 2009 greatly reduced the expanse of the shoal and its availability as aloafing habitat. Dredging operations appeared to have a limited effect on the bird counts due tothe localized nature of the work and the limited use of the dredge area by birds.Each of five teams, which included 2-3 people (1-2 observers and 1 recorder), was responsiblefor surveying an assigned set of zones over each survey day, which extended from approximately0700 to 1200. Team size depended upon complexity of the survey area and seasonal abundanceof birds. Multiple observers allowed teams to minimize double-counts associated with birdmovements between zones.The field biologists used both binoculars and spotting scopes to identify and count species. Allteams conducted surveys simultaneously. Data collected included species, number ofindividuals, activities of the birds (foraging, flying, or resting), and habitats in which the birdsoccurred (open water, nesting site, mud flat, salt marsh, disturbed salt marsh, freshwater marsh,willow riparian, mulefat scrub, coastal sage and baccharis scrub, salt panne [dry], inundated saltpanne, decaying and transitional vegetation, riprap, sand bar, non-native vegetation, anddisturbed/road). Weather conditions, including air temperature, wind speed, wind direction,cloud cover, precipitation, and tide height, were recorded several times during each survey day.Due to the large size of the zones being surveyed, particularly in the FTB, identifications wereoften made over great distances. When it was not possible to identify a bird to the species leveldue to distance, overhead flight, or a limited view of the bird, a less specific identification wasmade such as “unidentified gull” or “unidentified swallow”. In cases where challenging lightingconditions and long distances prevented the distinction between two species that are very similarand require close inspection to identify, the less specific name was used if necessary, i.e. greaterand lesser scaup or long-billed and short-billed dowitcher were identified as “unidentified scaup”and “unidentified dowitcher”, respectively.Avifauna observed during field surveys were recorded on field data sheets along with collectionlocation, time, and name of field observer. All field staff carried a field guide to avoidmisidentification of uncommon species. In order to avoid double counts of birds, individualsthat were observed on the boundary of a zone or flying from one zone to another were recordedby only one team. This was determined by communicating directly with the other team byphone. If contact could not be made, the data were recorded and details were noted on the datasheets including the time of the sighting. At the end of each survey, the survey teams rejoined toreview the data sheets and, if necessary, corrections were made to the data sheets to avoid overcountingof individual birds.In some cases it was not possible to definitively assess whether a double-count had occurred,particularly with large flocks of highly transitory shorebirds and with raptors, which ranged overMerkel & Associates, Inc. 58

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportall survey zones and were seen on both survey days. In cases where an over-count wassuspected, a note was included in the reported table of birds observed.All survey data were initially recorded in the field on hard copy data sheets and then transferredin the office to digital database files and checked for accuracy. The database was then queried toextract summary information used to prepare tables and figures. Data were analyzed to identifyspatial and temporal trends in total avian abundance, numbers of species, and patterns of habitatusage, activity, and seasonal variation. Each bird species observed was assigned to one of 9ecological guilds (Appendix 1-E).Attempts were made to locate results of pre-restoration avian monitoring programs within BolsaChica for comparison. Prior western snowy plover reports prepared by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (Fancher, 1998; Fancher et al., 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006)and the report on Belding’s Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) populationsin California (Zembal et al., 2006) were located and reviewed. Data collected during priorgeneral avian surveys of the site were not located.The following results section includes all data collected from January to August 2009, capturingthe last three quarters of monitoring Year 3 (January to August 2009) (see Figure 0-2 formonitoring schedule).ResultsA summary of the 2009 avian survey results is presented in Table 1-12. Avian abundance wasfairly consistent for each survey period with the exception of the June survey, when counts werenotably lower. This was due to the absence of many shorebirds and wintering ducks, and thetiming of the survey at the end of the spring migration period. Species counts ranged from 64 to88 species and was highest during the February surveys. A total of 121 species was observed in2009, for a grand total of 166 species observed since the start of the monitoring period (October2007 to August 2009).Table 1-12. Summary of 2009 survey dates and number of birds and species observed.DateNumber ofBirdsNumber ofSpeciesFebruary 12 & 13, 2009 11,156 88April 13 & 14, 2009 11,717 86June 9 & 10, 2009 4,875 64August 20 & 21, 2009 10,401 73Table 1-13 presents the count totals by species for each survey event. Abundance data tables arepresented in Appendix 1-F showing abundance for each species by survey zone. Overall, the tenmost abundant species observed in 2009 were western sandpiper (Calidris mauri) (24.0% of theMerkel & Associates, Inc. 59

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-13. Avian abundance by survey (2009).Species Feb-09 Apr-09 Jun-09 Aug-09 TotalHorned Grebe 35 2 37Eared Grebe 27 86 113Pied-billed Grebe 14 15 11 40Western Grebe 3 3White Pelican 2 2 4Brown Pelican 5 199 560 82 846Double-crested Cormorant 79 20 23 64 186American Bittern 1 1Black-crowned Night Heron 20 5 23 19 67Green Heron 1 1 2Reddish Egret 5 1 6* 12Snowy Egret 28 62 35 82 207Great Egret 16 16 17 48 97Great Blue Heron 13 5 18 25 61Canada Goose 5 24 16 45Brant 5 1 4 10Mallard 29 108 95 27 259Gadwall 153 147 209 509Green-winged Teal 328 38 366American Wigeon 380 78 458Northern Pintail 296 296Northern Shoveler 1069 474 1543Blue-winged Teal 21 37 58Cinnamon Teal 31 60 1 92Redhead 13 29 32 74Greater Scaup 7 23 30Lesser Scaup 12 10 22Unidentified Scaup 53 53Unidentified Duck 30 1 3 34Surf Scoter 47 3 50Bufflehead 232 26 258Red-breasted Merganser 11 10 1 22Ruddy Duck 592 557 28 1177Turkey Vulture 1 1 2Osprey 1 1 2White-tailed Kite 2 2Northern Harrier 1 1 2Cooper's Hawk* 2 5 7Red-tailed Hawk* 5 1 1 2 9American Kestrel 1 1 1 2 5Peregrine Falcon 2 1 3Virginia Rail 1 1Sora 3 4 7American Coot 976 788 5 1769Merkel & Associates, Inc. 60

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-13. Avian abundance by survey (2009) cont’d.Species Feb-09 Apr-09 Jun-09 Aug-09 TotalBlack-bellied Plover 728 230 52 774 1784Western Snowy Plover 81 41 23 145Semipalmated Plover 44 156 32 225 457Killdeer 101 69 54 90 314Unidentified Plover 1 1American Avocet 193 230 59 17 499Black-necked Stilt 76 367 270 96 809Willet 124 90 34 95 343Greater Yellowlegs 25 32 15 29 101Lesser Yellowlegs 4 1 7 28 40Unidentified Yellowlegs 102 16 11 129Spotted Sandpiper 8 8Whimbrel 5 12 13 5 35Long-billed Curlew 28 8 3 24 63Marbled Godwit 155 96 36 171 458Ruddy Turnstone 11 13 3 36 63Red Knot 49 17 66Sanderling 788 6 17 811Dunlin 20 98 92 210Western Sandpiper 953 5042 32 3145 9172Least Sandpiper 68 21 31 120Unidentified Sandpiper 982 159 2872 4013Unidentified Dowitcher 322 773 229 172 1496Wilson's Phalarope 3 3Red-necked Phalarope 27 27Bonaparte's Gull 1 1Ring-billed Gull 76 16 2 24 118Mew Gull 1 1California Gull 223 35 17 275Western Gull 60 41 25 98 224Unidentified Gull 282 60 10 20 372Elegant Tern 209 641 805 1655Royal Tern 3 3 6Caspian Tern 2 66 48 97 213Forster's Tern 28 36 38 20 122Gull-billed Tern 1 1 2California Least Tern 1 250 7 258Black Skimmer 2 142 56 200Unidentified Tern 2 2Rock Dove 8 4 14 26Mourning Dove 83 65 171 155 474Burrowing Owl 1 1Anna's Hummingbird 16 17 5 9 47Allen's Hummingbird* 3 6 10 4 23Unidentified Hummingbird 3 3Belted Kingfisher* 3 1 4Merkel & Associates, Inc. 61

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-13. Avian abundance by survey (2009) cont’d.Species Feb-09 Apr-09 Jun-09 Aug-09 TotalNorthern Flicker 1 1Black Phoebe 9 4 25 19 57Say's Phoebe 7 1 8Ash-throated Flycatcher 1 1Cassin's Kingbird 1 1 2Loggerhead Shrike 1 1American Crow 9 5 12 23 49Common Raven 1 2 7 10Violet-green Swallow 54 54Tree Swallow 38 4 9 51Cliff Swallow 152 48 441 62 703Northern Rough-winged Swallow 29 2 39 70Barn Swallow 19 36 134 181 370Unidentified Swallow 7 2 10 19Wrentit 1 1Bushtit 7 20 31 58House Wren 2 2Marsh Wren 1 5 3 9Northern Mockingbird 5 8 7 20European Starling 73 7 17 3 100American Pipit 44 44Orange-crowned Warbler 1 1Yellow-rumped Warbler 14 1 1 2 18Common Yellowthroat 4 18 19 16 57California Towhee 2 2Savannah Sparrow 9 17 26Belding's Savannah Sparrow 288 412 456 178 1334Song Sparrow 11 9 6 12 38White-crowned Sparrow 80 7 87Unidentified Sparrow 2 2 4Black-headed Grosbeak 2 2Western Meadowlark 116 1 7 124Red-winged Blackbird 34 56 43 133Great-tailed Grackle 1 38 24 63Hooded Oriole 2 2 4House Finch 88 95 322 69 574American Goldfinch 4 4 8Lesser Goldfinch 6 1 7Unidentified Flycatcher 1 1House Sparrow 1 1Grand Total 11156 11717 4875 10401 38149* Species suspected of overcounting in some cases due to multiple sightings that could not be determined as either unique or duplicate.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 62

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reporttotal), followed by unidentified sandpipers (Calidris spp.) (10.5%), black-bellied plover(Pluvialis squatarola) (4.7%), American coot (Fulica americana) (4.6%), elegant tern (4.3%),northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) (4.0%), dowitcher (Limnodromus spp.) (3.9%), Belding’sSavannah sparrow (3.5%), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) (3.1%), and brown pelican(Pelecanus occidentalis) (2.2%).Species observed for the first time in 2009 included gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica),hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), spotted sandpiper (Actitismacularius), and ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens).Guild UsageThe most abundant bird guild was shorebirds in all survey periods except June (4,730 individualsin February, 7,546 individuals in April, 886 individuals in June, and 8,005 individuals in August)(Figure 1-10). Shorebirds made up an average of 55.5% of all birds observed, with a high of77% in August 2009. During June the number of shorebirds dropped to 886 individuals andrepresented only 18.2% of the birds present.Number of birds9,0008,0007,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,000Feb 2009Apr 2009June 2009Aug 2009Mean- all 2009 surveys1,0000Aerial FishForagersCoots andRailsDabblingDucks/GeeseDiving Ducks/Grebes/CormorantsGulls Herons Raptors Shorebirds UplandBirdsFigure 1-10. Avian abundance by guild at Bolsa Chica during each 2009 survey.The most numerous shorebird species in 2009 was the western sandpiper with the highestnumbers in April (5,042 individuals representing 43.0% of all birds observed) and August (3,145individuals, representing 30.2% of all birds observed) surveys. Low numbers of westernsandpiper were observed in February (953 individuals) and almost no western sandpipers werecounted in June (32 individuals). Other abundant shorebirds included sandpiper sp. (a mix ofwestern and least sandpipers), black-bellied plover, dowitcher, sanderling (Calidris alba), blackneckedstilt (Himantopus himantopus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), marbledgodwit (Limosa fedoa), and semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), in that order. InJune, when most of the shorebirds were absent, the black-necked stilt and dowitcher were themost common shorebirds. The black-necked stilt is one of several shorebirds that nest at BolsaChica. The snowy plover is the only federal or state listed shorebird observed at Bolsa Chica andMerkel & Associates, Inc. 63

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportthe count of 81 individuals in April was much higher than the 47 adults observed during focusedsurveys for this species conducted in May and almost double the number of individuals observedin 2008. This increase was partially due to a flock of 46 individuals observed foraging on themudflats in Cell 70 during April 2009.The second most abundant guild in 2009 was upland birds, primarily due to the inclusion ofSavannah sparrows in this guild. Savannah sparrows includes both the Belding’s Savannahsparrow, a species that remains in the salt marsh year round, and any other migrating Savannahsparrow. The number of individuals in the guild remained fairly stable for the entire yearalthough there was a small drop in numbers during April (860 individuals) and August (860individuals). June had the highest count of upland birds with 1,760 individuals comprising36.1% of all birds observed during that survey. The count in February was comparable with1,208 individuals (10.8% of all birds observed).The most numerous upland species, Belding’s Savannah sparrow, remains in the salt marsh yearround. The highest numbers of Belding’s Savannah sparrow were recorded during the months ofApril and June when 412 and 456 individuals were counted, respectively. The lowest numbersof this species were observed in February and August (with 288 and 178 individuals,respectively), which correspond to the beginning and end of the Belding’s Savannah sparrowbreeding season.There were also a large number of swallows included in the upland birds. The cliff swallow(Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) was the most abundant, followed by the barn swallow (Hirundorustica). Swallow species also included smaller numbers of northern rough-winged swallow(Stelgidopteryx serripennis), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), and violet-green swallow(Tachycineta thalassina). Cliff swallow were most numerous in June (441 individuals) and barnswallows most numerous in August (181 individuals). Northern-rough winged swallow (38individuals) and violet-green swallow (54 individuals) were most numerous in February. Treeswallow was most numerous in both February and December with 29 and 39 individualsobserved, respectively. The great-tailed grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus), not native to the areabut an invading species from Sonora or southern Arizona, was observed breeding during Apriland June surveys but was not observed during any other surveys.The third most abundant guild was dabbling ducks/geese, and highest numbers of individuals inthis guild were counted February (2,354 individuals), April (982 individuals), and June (322individuals). The most abundant species of the dabbling ducks were northern shoveler, gadwall(Anas strepera), and American wigeon (Anas americana), followed closely by green-winged teal(Anas crecca), northern pintail (Anas acuta), and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Most of thedabbling ducks were observed during February and April, with diversity and abundancedropping in June and August when these species migrate to northern breeding grounds. Also ofnote, several brant (Branta bernicla) were observed foraging in eelgrass in the FTB.Aerial fish foragers were the fourth most abundant guild and accounted for 8.7% of all birdsobserved over the 2009 monitoring year. The elegant tern was the most common, accounting for50% of all aerial fish foragers. Other dominant species in this guild included, in descendingorder of abundance, brown pelican, California least tern, Caspian tern, black skimmer, andForster’s tern (Sterna forsteri). Hundreds of brown pelican utilized the FTB in April and June,Merkel & Associates, Inc. 64

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportloafing on the mudflats in front of Nest Site 1. All of the tern species listed above, along withthe royal tern, nest at Bolsa Chica in the area of the FTB and Inner Bolsa Bay, accounting forhigh numbers of these species counted during the June and August surveys. Aerial fish foragerswere most likely undercounted during June and August due to limited access to the high-densitynesting area in Zone 71 (Nest Site 1). It is important to note that the elegant tern count (of 805 inAugust 2009) reflects only this species usage of Zone 71 for resting, and only represents aportion of the total breeding population at the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Elegant ternsnested at North Tern Island in Inner Bolsa Bay, outside the survey focus of this monitoringprogram; however, they utilized NS1 for resting (see Figure 0-1). An estimated 7,500 elegantterns nested on North Tern Island in 2009 (Mike Horn, pers. comm.).Other aerial fish foragers included belted kingfisher (Megaceryl alcyon) and white pelican(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), which were observed loafing and foraging in very low numbers.The gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) has expanded its foraging range north to OrangeCounty and was observed foraging at Bolsa Chica a number of times in 2009. A gull-billed ternwas observed depredating several snowy plover chicks and is estimated to have taken aminimum of 18 plover chicks and an unknown number of California least tern chicks during the2009 breeding season.Diving ducks/grebes/cormorants were the fifth most abundant guild and accounted for 5.4% ofall birds observed over the year. As in past years, the ruddy duck was the most common divingduck accounting for 57.5% of all individuals in this guild, with the majority counted during theFebruary and April surveys and none counted during the August survey. Other common speciesin this guild were bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocoraxauritus), eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), scaup (Aythya sp.), redhead (Aythya americana), andsurf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata). Double-crested cormorant were observed year round, andnest within Bolsa Chica; however, this species was observed in higher numbers during the postbreedingmonths of August through February.The remaining guilds were represented in the following order of descending abundance: cootsand rails, gulls, herons, and raptors. Coots and rails were primarily comprised of American coot.The primary gulls observed on site were California gull (Larus californicus), western gull (Larusoccidentalis), and ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis). A notable member of the heron guildwas the reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), regularly seen in the FTB and Muted Pocket Marsh.There were as many as five individuals of this species observed in February 2009 and oneindividual was observed in June 2009. In August 2009, an adult reddish egret with two juvenilesalong with two or three other individuals were observed. The other herons in this guild included:snowy egret (Egretta thula), great egret (Ardea alba), black-crowned night heron (Nycticoraxnycticorax), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias).Raptors typically account for the lowest individual counts due to their higher position in the foodchain. They are more likely to be over-counted due to their mobility and large territories.Attempts were made by surveyors to eliminate over-counts; however, this proved difficult overtime and between consecutive survey days. Nine species of raptor were observed in 2009including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Americankestrel (Falco sparverius), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus),Merkel & Associates, Inc. 65

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportnorthern harrier (Circus cyaneus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), turkey vulture (Cathartesaura), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).Avian Usage of the Survey AreaAssessing the spatial avian usage of Bolsa Chica is complicated due to the frequent movementsof shorebirds and waterfowl between areas such as the Seasonal Ponds and FTB within andbetween days. However, a general overview of patterns of use within the study area can beassessed.Full Tidal BasinThe 158-hectare FTB is the largest and most highly utilized portion of the study area. A total of15,556 individuals (40.8% of all birds observed), representing 71 species, were counted in thebasin in 2009. The heavy usage of this area was strongly linked to the low tidal elevation duringwhich the surveys were conducted. During low tide, shorebirds (which made up 71.6% of allbirds) foraged on the intertidal mudflats along the eastern shore of the basin (cordgrass bench),southwestern shoreline (Nest Site 1), and around Rabbit Island. Over half of the black-belliedplover, semipalmated plover, and willet (Tringa semipalmata) observed in 2009 were recorded inthe FTB. Nearly all of the large shorebirds such as long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus),marbled godwit, and whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), along with 84% of the western sandpipersand 74% of all western snowy plover were recorded foraging or resting in the FTB. Brant wereonly found in the FTB either along the shore of NS1 or foraging in the eelgrass.Almost all the observed brown pelican (99.3%), reddish egret (91.7%), and western gull (84.4%)were found in the FTB. Gulls, cormorants, and brown pelicans utilized the exposed mudflats andsand bars for loafing during the low tides. As the tide rose at the end of the surveys, many of theshorebirds and loafing gulls and pelicans would move to the zones east of the FTB levee oncethe mudflat was flooded in the FTB. Patterns of high tide usage are not reflected in the presentdataset due to intentional low tide timing.Nest Site 1 in the FTB was highly utilized by aerial fish foragers, particularly during the Aprilthrough August 2009 surveys when the terns and skimmers were nesting. Overall, 93.5% of allaerial fish foragers observed during 2009 were recorded in the FTB. Scientists from CaliforniaState University Fullerton have been examining usage of the FTB by terns, particularly eleganttern. Preliminary results indicate that tern foraging activity is minimal in the FTB, with the birdsforaging primarily in the ocean (Jeanette Hendricks, pers. comm.). This is confirmed by the 2009survey data for this monitoring program. During the 2009 monitoring, a total of only eightelegant terns were documented foraging in the FTB. Among the other tern species, there werenine least tern, five Caspian tern, 23 Forster’s tern, and five black skimmer documented foragingin the FTB.Future Full Tidal BasinA total of 8,260 birds (105 species) were counted in the 104-hectare FFTB in 2009. The mostabundant guilds in the FFTB were upland birds, shorebirds, and dabbling ducks/geese,respectively. The most abundant upland birds were Belding’s Savannah sparrows, which utilizedthe pickleweed-dominated salt marsh. Also abundant were mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),cliff swallow, house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and barn swallow. The mourning dove andhouse finch utilized the weedy uplands available in this area. These zones are dry and highlyMerkel & Associates, Inc. 66

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportdisturbed in some areas. The most abundant shorebirds were western sandpiper, black-neckedstilt, and black-bellied plover. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) occurred in the more disturbedareas of the basin. The ponded water within Zones 38, 63, and 30 was utilized by dabblingducks and shorebirds. American coots were also very abundant in this region.Muted Tidal BasinsThe 77-hectare MTBs was the least utilized of all the survey areas, with the most abundantguilds being shorebirds and upland species. The MTBs accounted for a total of 5,980 individuals(89 species) during the 2009 surveys. Sandpipers, black-necked stilt, dowitcher, and blackbelliedplover were the most abundant shorebird species; however, the sandpiper numbers weredominated by one very large flock of loafing least and western sandpipers observed during theAugust 2009 survey. As with the Seasonal Ponds, the MTBs were more heavily used byshorebirds during high tide, when mudflat was lost in the FTB but remained in the MTBs due tothe tidal muting caused by operation or continued closure of the tide gates.The most abundant upland species observed in the MTBs during the surveys were Belding’sSavannah sparrow, house finch, and cliff swallow. The MTB is an important area for Belding’sSavannah sparrow nesting, providing large expanses of pickleweed. In 2009, there was standingwater in much of the MTBs due to the opening of the west MTB to the FTB and subsequent flowinto the central and east MTB; however, Belding’s Savannah sparrow usage of this arearemained high.The ponded water in the MTBs was utilized by California least terns and Forster’s terns forforaging.Seasonal PondsA total of 4,530 individual birds were counted in the 50-hectare Seasonal Ponds during the 2009surveys, representing 81 species. These ponds are a very important habitat for shorebirds,waterfowl, and Belding’s Savannah sparrows. Zone 11 makes up the largest portion of theSeasonal Ponds, supports the most diverse habitats, and is the least disturbed of the SeasonalPond zones. As a consequence, most bird activity was focused in this zone. The degree ofinundation by rainfall fluctuates from year to year, but generally yields a mix of shallow water,salt panne, riparian forest, freshwater marsh, and salt marsh in this zone and the remainder of theSeasonal Ponds.The most abundant guilds in the Seasonal Ponds were shorebirds and dabbling ducks/geese.This area was primarily occupied by shorebirds such as the black-bellied plover, westernsandpiper, American avocet, and black-necked stilt; the latter two species nested in the SeasonalPonds. The most common dabbling ducks were the northern shoveler, gadwall, and greenwingedteal, indicating the importance of the shallow water in the inundated salt panne forforaging and the exposed salt panne for loafing. The Seasonal Ponds also support considerableexpanses of pickleweed that were heavily utilized for nesting by Belding’s Savannah sparrows.The Seasonal Ponds are much more heavily used by shorebirds during rising tides in the FTBwhen the mudflats are no longer exposed and large flocks of sandpiper, black-bellied plover, andsemipalmated plover move over the levee and into the ponds. This condition is not reflected inthis dataset.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 67

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMuted Pocket MarshThe 14-hectare Muted Pocket Marsh consists primarily of shallow open water and mudflat andis, therefore, highly utilized by shorebirds and dabbling ducks. A total of 3,824 individuals (75species) were counted in the Muted Pocket Marsh during the 2009 surveys. Although this areaappeared to have the lowest number of individuals and species, this is solely due to its size.Compared to the highly utilized FTB, which had an overall density of 98 birds per hectare, theMuted Pocket Marsh supported a density of 273 birds per hectare. The most abundant shorebirdswere black-bellied plover, western sandpiper, American avocet and black-necked stilt. The mostabundant of dabbling ducks included northern shoveler and gadwall.The rampikes of dead eucalyptus trees that ring the basin were used for perching by osprey,double-crested cormorant, and belted kingfisher. The dead Myoporum along the shorelines werefrequently occupied by roosting black-crowned night heron.Avian Distribution and Abundance by Habitat TypeMudflats were the most utilized habitat type during the 2009 surveys (accommodating 35.4% ofall birds observed) (Figure 1-11). Large and small shorebirds had the highest utilization of themudflats primarily for foraging but also for loafing. Aerial fish foragers, ducks, and gulls alsoused the mudflats for loafing. The inundated salt panne was also highly utilized(accommodating 18.9% of all birds), particularly by northern shoveler, American coot, ruddyduck, and western sandpiper. Salt marsh, open water, nest site, and salt panne (dry) were thenext most utilized habitats, accommodating (9.8%, 7.4%, 5.2%, and 4.5% of total birds,respectively. Salt marsh habitat usage, unlike the other habitat types, increased during thebreeding season and continued to increase into the fall surveys. This can largely be attributed tobreeding Belding’s Savannah sparrow; however, during the August survey there was also anincrease in use by large shorebirds and upland birds (swallows and morning doves).14,0005812,00010,000Number of bir8,0006,000594,0002,000075SaltMarsh164217Disturbed Freshwater Willow/Salt Marsh Marsh Riparian5Mulef atScrub26Decaying/Transitional40SaltPanneInundatedSalt Panne18NestSite58OpenWat er2114Riprap Mudflat SandShoal26 353Coastal Non-native Urban/Sage Scrub Veget. DisturbedFigure 1-11. Avian abundance by habitat type at Bolsa Chica in 2009 (number of species shown inlabel).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 68

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportThe extent of each habitat varies greatly (Table 1-1). The data presented above illustrateinteresting patterns of overall habitat usage. However, they do not address density of birdswithin each habitat. When standardized by the area of each habitat, seasonal patterns of avianhabitat usage become apparent. Avian densities in February were greatest on the intertidal sandshoal (527 birds/ha), mudflat (110 birds/ha), and willow/riparian (104 birds/ha). In April, aviandensities were greatest on the mudflats (193 birds/ha), freshwater marsh (115 birds/ha), andwillow/riparian (53 birds/ha). In June avian diversities were greatest on the nest site (102birds/ha), freshwater marsh (77 birds/ha), and willow/riparian (64 birds/ha). In August thegreatest number of birds were located in the disturbed salt marsh (1,014 birds/ha), nest site (144birds/ha), and mudflats (92 birds/ha). These density numbers reflect the seasonal activity at thesite. In the winter there are a large number of shorebirds, gulls, and pelicans loafing on theintertidal sand shoals and mudflats and a large number of shorebirds foraging on the mudflats.In the early spring there are migrating ducks and shorebirds using the mudflats and marsh to restand forage. During the summer months the birds are nesting and terns increase in density on thenest sites and larger shorebirds and Belding’s Savannah sparrow start to increase in the saltmarsh.Flying birds were recorded in the habitat over which they were flying at the time of observation,though they may not necessarily use that habitat on the ground. Flyovers accounted for 8.7% ofall bird observations during 2009. To look at species richness, all birds recorded as flying weredisregarded and only birds on the ground were considered. Species richness was highest in thesalt marsh (75 species), inundated salt panne (59 species), open water (58 species), and mudflat(58 species) (Figure 1-11). All other habitat types had less than 43 species observed in 2009.Eelgrass and cordgrass habitat are not shown on Figure 1-11, but were utilized by five and onespecies of foraging bird, respectively.As noted in the prior annual report, the heavy usage of the intertidal sand shoals in Zone 73(inlet) at low tide by gulls, cormorants, terns, and pelicans is not fully captured by these surveys,though this pattern of usage was observed regularly during late afternoon low tides at the site.The survey also cannot account for movement of birds into and out of the survey area from BolsaChica State Beach and from Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay.DiscussionThe Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project included several elements geared towardenhancement of the avian community within the project area. The creation of the Full TidalBasin is the most notable, involving removing existing oil wells, excavating a basin, andconstructing a permanent opening to the ocean in 2006. By 2009, the FTB mudflats and openwater were among the most highly used areas of the entire project area, providing expansiveforaging and loafing habitat to 86 species, including six that were found in no other area of thesite: gull-billed tern, greater scaup (Aythya marila), Bonaparte’s gull (Chroicocephalusphiladelpia), osprey, brant, and western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis). As detailed in theprevious sections, the FTB supports a diverse marine community, including fish, invertebrates,and eelgrass, which provide important food resources for migrating, resident, and nesting birds.As eelgrass habitat continues to expand in the FTB in the coming years, more surf scoter, brant,and other diving birds will likely frequent the basin.The FTB design included intertidal mudflat suitable for the introduction of cordgrass. Theexpansion of the transplanted cordgrass over time should provide habitat attractive to light-Merkel & Associates, Inc. 69

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportfooted clapper rail in the coming years. Clapper rails were observed in 2009 in the marsh ofInner Bolsa Bay, confirming their presence in the system and the potential for their movementinto the FTB when vegetative cover is available. To facilitate the development of this cordgrasscover, it is critical that appropriate tidal ranges and inundation frequency of the mudflat bemaintained through regular maintenance dredging of the basin inlet.The creation of the three nest sites within Bolsa Chica substantially increased the availablehabitat for nesting terns and plovers and has resulted in improved production of fledglings. Theusage of these nest sites and resulting reproductive success will be discussed further in the nextsection.Another element of the Project involved the introduction of muted tidal influence to the MutedPocket Marsh. This area was previously freshwater and was converted to a saltwater systemwhich resulted in increased avian usage of this area. This area had consistently high densities ofbirds, provides an easily accessible viewing area for the public, and supports several Belding’sSavannah sparrow breeding territories.The Muted Tidal Basins have been heavily utilized since their creation. The sidecast mounds oneither side of the tidal channels have proven to be a heavily used feature, providing dry areas forlarge numbers of shorebirds during high tide in the FTB and during periods of high water inMTBs. Prior to the restoration effort, the expanses of pickleweed in the MTBs were non-tidaland experienced hypersaline sediment conditions and the environmental extremes of wet and dryseasons. The Project design included restoration of muted tidal influence to these basins in orderto provide greater environmental stability to the salt marsh, improve habitat conditions forBelding’s Savannah sparrow, and to create a more functional salt marsh with open water,intertidal mudflats, as well as low and mid marsh. Only the west MTB was open to tidalinfluence in 2009. This basin maintained a high level of Belding’s Savannah sparrow territorieswhile also providing open water for wintering ducks and foraging terns, and some mudflat forforaging sandpipers. The regulation of the water levels in this basin was hampered by the rapidre-accumulation of sand in the FTB inlet following the 2009 dredging, preventing tides fromfalling as low as desired in the FTB and west MTB. It is anticipated that with more effectivemaintenance dredging in the future and the opening of the other two MTBs to tidal influence, theentire MTB system will be able to move toward an equilibrium of habitat availability formultiple avian guilds.The Seasonal Ponds and FFTB portions of the study area that were minimally affected by therestoration, and continued to support high numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds during the year.Diversity (as species abundance) within the entire study area (135 species in 2008, 123 species in2009) is comparable to diversity observed at other coastal salt marshes in southern California.The bird usage of Batiquitos Lagoon in San Diego County was monitored, using similar methodsto those of the present study, for 10 years following the restoration of tidal influence to thesystem. Two years post-restoration, 133 species were documented at Batiquitos Lagoon (Merkel& Associates 2009a). Batiquitos Lagoon is a smaller site (approximately 2/3 the size), butincludes more diverse habitats in a more balanced distribution. The Huntington Beach Wetlandsare located roughly five miles to the south of Bolsa Chica and have been monitored since 2007prior to and following the restoration of tidal influence to Brookhurst and Magnolia Marshes.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 70

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFrom January 2007 to October 2009 a total of 137 bird species were documented in quarterlysaturation surveys of Brookhurst, Magnolia, and Talbert Marshes. These marshes containsimilar expanses of non-tidal pickleweed marsh that were restored to tidal influence in 2009(Brookhurst) and 2010 (Magnolia).Light-footed Clapper Rail MonitoringSurveys for the State and Federally endangered light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostrislevipes) will not be initiated until suitable cordgrass habitat has developed to an extent andquality to attract the clapper rail. The current status of the cordgrass transplants is detailed in thevegetation section of this report. Although sightings of light-footed clapper rail at Bolsa ChicaEcological Reserve are very rare (and have not been seen at all in the restoration area), one andtwo individuals were observed on several occasions in summer 2009 in Inner Bolsa Bay near theboardwalk off of Pacific Coast Highway. Their presence is a good sign that clapper rails maymove into the adjacent restoration area when suitable habitat develops.Belding’s Savannah Sparrow MonitoringMethodologyTwo complete surveys for the state endangered Belding's Savannah sparrow were performed in2009. The number of surveys was increased from one survey in 2007 to two in 2008. Theincreased surveys were continued in 2009 in order to improve the reliability of the number ofterritories recorded. The results of both 2009 surveys have been used in the analysis. The firstsurvey was conducted on February 25 and 26 and the second on March 23, 24, and 25. Thesurveys were timed earlier than in prior years to better capture the beginning of the breedingseason when displays of territorial and breeding behavior are most easily observed. All areaswith potentially suitable breeding habitat for the Belding's Savannah sparrow (pickleweeddominatedsalt marsh) were surveyed. The site was surveyed on foot by qualified biologistsusing binoculars and spotting scopes. Surveys were performed between 0530 hours and 1100hours. Weather conditions including air temperature, cloud cover, precipitation, andapproximate wind speed were recorded regularly throughout each survey.In 2007 the survey program included a calibration training period with Dick Zembal prior toconducting the surveys so that data collected would be consistent between individuals andcomparable to past surveys conducted at the site along with statewide survey efforts (Zembal etal, 2006). The method employed gives a rapid estimate of the number of territories and theirlocations. The same team conducted the surveys in 2008 and 2009 to avoid further surveyorbias. Surveys will be conducted annually to document changes in Belding’s savannah sparrowbreeding activity over time and space within the study area.The study area was surveyed over a two or three day period by assigning each surveyor a seriesof zones. Each zone was surveyed only once per survey. The surveys would have beendiscontinued for the day if wind, visibility, rain, or other factors were deemed to be unsuitablefor accurate and effective data collection, including an absence of territorial behavior by thesparrows. No such problems were encountered during these surveys. All survey data wereinitially recorded in the field on hard copy maps of each zone and then transferred in the office toGIS database files.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 71

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportThe location of each Belding’s Savannah sparrow territory observed was plotted on a map basedon the observed behaviors which included: singing by a perched male, extended perchingtogether of mates, territorial defensive behavior demonstrated by circular chasing of birds from aterritory, scolding, carrying nesting material or food, feeding young, and extended high and fullyexposed perching of individuals. All behaviors were marked on the field map of the zone beingassessed. At the completion of the survey of each zone, the biologist reviewed the notes,assessed the significance of each behavior noted, and wrote down a tally of the total number ofterritories assessed in that zone. Biologists were careful to keep track of birds within a zone toavoid over counting territories. The ranking of behavior used to determine a territory, listedfrom most-certain to least-certain, was: carrying nesting material or food, feeding young, singingby a perched male, extended perching of a mates, territory by chase, extended exposed perchingof individuals (males), and scolding. Because observations of nesting behavior (carrying nestingmaterial or feeding young) are rarely observed in the field, singing of perched males was thebehavior most utilized to define territories. If the biologist mapped a male as perched for anextended period of time, but it later began singing, the singing would supersede the perching inmaking the determination and the final map would show a single singing male.From these breeding and territorial behaviors, the number and approximate locations ofterritories within each zone were estimated. This method has been used by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game when the scope of the surveysdoes not include precise determination of the number of territories present. Additionally, thistechnique has been used for statewide surveys (Zembal et al., 2006). However, a clearly defined,written protocol for surveys of this type does not exist and there will, therefore, be someunavoidable variation in technique and judgment between survey programs.ResultsThe location of the Belding’s Savannah sparrow territories estimated from observed breedingand territorial behaviors is shown in Figure 1-12. The number of Belding’s Savannah sparrowterritories within the zones varied greatly between surveys; however, the overall count totals ofindividual birds were very similar (270 in February and 268 in March). The majority ofterritories were determined by observation of a singing male (84%) and extended perching ofpairs (13%), with the other behaviors making up roughly 3% of the territory determinations.Territories appeared to be relatively evenly dispersed throughout areas where pickleweeddominatedsalt marsh occurred, however there were some cases where many males wereclustered close together, while in other areas that appeared ideal were unoccupied during bothsurveys. In Zone 49, for example, seven individual males were observed singing simultaneouslyvery close to each other at the northern portion of the zone during the February survey (Figure 1-12). Although there are several similar are in Figure 1-12 where the high density of adjacentterritorial birds appears unlikely, it should be noted that in these cases the birds were mappedonly if they were all observed simultaneously, to avoid overcounts. Because nesting surveyswere not done, it is not known if the birds were actually nesting that close to one another orsimply in close proximity as part of their territorial displays.The total number of territories detected at Bolsa Chica increased in 2009 over the numbersrecorded in 2008. The MTBs showed the largest increase in territories in 2009 (123 and 93territories in February and March, respectively) over the number determined during 2008 surveys(45 and 72 territories in April and May, respectively). The Seasonal Ponds, FFTB, PocketMerkel & Associates, Inc. 72

Zone PM 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 63 66 68 TotalFeb-09 8 4 9 16 16 5 5 4 6 3 1 4 3 4 2 9 3 3 7 10 6 2 7 6 9 18 21 15 4 15 14 19 2 2 8 270Mar-09 3 6 14 10 30 4 3 6 9 3 2 2 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 5 8 3 9 9 9 3 1 13 13 17 14 17 10 1 5 10 5 2 1 5 268PM506647494846686945424171403938706330377229 3119282014932272113332625223435242336731012211February 2009 (270 Territories)March 2009 (268 Territories)0 100 200 400 600 800MetersμBelding's Savannah sparrow territories - 2009Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 1-12Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMarsh, and FTB had a slightly higher number of territories in 2009 than in 2008 (Table 1-14).The number of territories did not correlate with the amount of salt marsh available for nesting.The Seasonal Ponds had the greatest density of territories per hectare of salt marsh habitat,followed closely by the FFTB.Table 1-14. Belding’s Savannah Sparrow territories at Bolsa Chica from 2007 to 2009.Number of TerritoriesSalt MarshZoneApril2007April2008May2008February2009March2009Available (ha)2009Full Tidal Basin n/a 5 10 8 5 7.0Future Full Tidal Basin 143 72 76 76 103 19.2Muted Tidal Basins 118 45 72 123 93 34.9Seasonal Ponds 90 53 47 55 67 11.5Pocket Marsh n/a 2 3 8 3 3.5Total 351 177 208 270 268 77.0n/a = not counted during 2007The amount of salt marsh within the site was 17% lower in 2009 than the prior year (92.0 ha in2008 and 76.5 ha in 2009). This reduction was the result of conversion of salt marsh to openwater or mudflat in the MTBs following the introduction of muted tidal influence in 2008.Additionally, large expanses of ponded water inundating lower lying pickleweed throughout therest of the site (from high rainfall) reduced the amount of salt marsh habitat suitable for breedingin 2009. This reduced amount of habitat does not appear to have resulted in fewer territories,though the outcome of nesting or fledgling success was not assessed by the current field effort.Although many of the males were observed singing from areas of fully inundated pickleweed, itis presumed that nests were located on the higher pickleweed areas at the edges of the cells andalong elevated features that occur in many locations within the cells (relic berms and sidecastmounds).Looking more closely at habitat availability and usage in the MTBs, there were approximately45.5 hectares and 35.0 hectares of coastal salt marsh habitat in the MTBs in 2008 and 2009,respectively. This represents a decline of 23% of available habitat in one year. In 2008, the westMTB had just been opened to tidal influence, inundating much of the pickleweed growing at lowelevations within the western and central MTBs (Zones 48, 49, 50, and 66). By 2009, theprocess of conversion of the low pickleweed to mudflat and open water was under way, and hadexpanded southeast to the central and east MTBs where water was ponded for extensive periodsof time as discussed in detail in Chapter 1.1. Despite the reduction in the availability of saltmarsh habitat, the number of Belding’s Savannah sparrow territories increased in the MTBs byapproximately 85% from 2008 to 2009.Using the area of undisturbed salt marsh available and the maximum number of territoriesrecorded per cell over both surveys within Zones 2-29, the average territory size in 2009 wasestimated to be 1,405 m 2 , ranging from 809 m 2 in Cell 25 to 2,569 m 2 in Cell 20. This is a verycourse calculation and does not take into account the observed patchy distribution of the birds inthe marsh or the considerable areas of what appeared to be suitable habitat that remainedunoccupied. This is a moderate decrease in average territory size from previous years (1,836 m 2in 2008 and 1,450 m 2 in 2007).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 74

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportDiscussionThe count of Belding’s Savannah sparrow territories increased from 2008 to 2009. This could bedue in part to the change in the timing of the surveys. Conducting the surveys earlier in thebreeding season allowed for observation of distinct breeding behavior and reduced confusioncreated by fledglings present later in the season. During both surveys in 2009, male sparrowswere very actively defending their territories, minimizing undercounting of individuals whilethey were out foraging and making identification of territories more clear.The Belding’s Savannah sparrow population seems quite variable from year to year. Theterritory count is only an estimate of the actual population, and detection of territories couldfluctuate with weather conditions or breeding status. However, the salt marsh habitat within thestudy area is currently fluctuating as the pickleweed in the individual zones adapts to changes ininundation. The flooding of much of the pickleweed in the MTBs appeared to reduce the overallamount of pickleweed available, but improved the quality of remaining pickleweed habitat. Thismay have resulted in improved foraging conditions and improved suitable breeding habitat forthe Belding’s Savannah sparrow even though the amount of pickleweed decreased considerably.This hypothesis is supported by the increased number of territories throughout the MTBs.The average size of Belding’s savannah sparrow territories within Bolsa Chica was larger thanthat observed in other systems, which resulted in a lower density of territories at Bolsa Chica in2009. In their study of 54 territories at Sweetwater Marsh in San Diego County, Powell andCollier (1998) found that territories ranged from 84.5m 2 to 999.5m 2 with an average size ofapproximately 475m 2 . Massey (1979) measured 14 territories at Anaheim Bay in Orange Countythat ranged between 250m 2 and 375m 2 .The estimation of average territory size (1,405 m 2 ) at Bolsa Chica is much larger than at otherdocumented sites; however, this calculation takes into account all available pickleweed habitat,including that which may not be occupied, and is likely an overestimate. While calculationsusing the total salt marsh habitat available would suggest low-density occupancy by Belding’sSavannah sparrow, the fragmented nature of the much of the salt marsh in the seasonal ponds(expansive salt panne with narrow fringing salt marsh) results in considerable area that isunsuitable for breeding use. As the MTB salt marsh moves toward an equilibrium distribution, itis expected that more of this area will become suitable and will be occupied by the sparrows.The restoration project was not intended to increase the area of salt marsh; rather the intent wasto increasing Belding’s Savannah sparrow usage and reproductive success through theimprovement of the habitat quality with the reintroduction of tidal flushing. The presentmethodology cannot quantify the reproductive success associated with the increased numbers ofterritories observed in 2009, however future annual surveys will document the trend in breedingactivity and allow an evaluation of the quality of the site for nesting Belding’s Savannahsparrows.California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover MonitoringMethodologyCalifornia least tern nest monitoring occurred on North Tern Island (NTI), South Tern Island(STI), Nest Site 1 (NS1), Nest Site 2 (NS2), and Nest Site 3 (NS3) (Figure 0-1). NTI and STIMerkel & Associates, Inc. 75

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportare located in Inner Bolsa Bay, outside of the project survey area, but are included in this reportin order to give a more complete understanding of tern reproductive success within the BolsaChica system. NS1, NS2, and NS3 are nesting islands within the project area created as part ofthe restoration effort; NS1 is in the FTB bordering the FTB and Inner Bolsa Bay, NS2 is locatedwithin Zone 42 of the southern MTB, and NS3 is located in Zone 14 of the FFTB (Figure 0-1).Western snowy plover nest sites included all tern colonies listed above but also included theSeasonal Ponds, FTB, and MTB.The principal survey effort for California least tern and western snowy plover was undertaken byCalifornia Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) seasonal staff member, Peter Knapp andassisted on NS1 by Kelly O’Reilly, of CDFG. Merkel & Associates biologist, Bonnie Peterson,participated intermittently in the survey efforts to support and to aid in collecting data for reportpreparation. Surveys for nesting western snowy plover normally begin in late-March, however, anest was found on February 23 rd in 2009, marking the start of nest surveys. Surveys wereconducted at least twice a week, sometimes 4 or 5 times a week, until the beginning ofSeptember. A field biologist was on-site daily; however, not all nest sites were surveyed daily.Rather, field work was concentrated on areas of activity, with a goal of covering the Bolsa Chicasurvey area once every several days. California least tern monitoring began as soon as the birdsstarted arriving at Bolsa Chica in mid-April and continued until the terns fledged and left thebreeding grounds in late August. Surveys were conducted once per week at each nest site duringthis nesting season. Additionally, unscheduled site observations (to note predators, disturbance,maintenance needs, etc.) were made by on-site biologists more frequently.Because nesting sites were utilized by multiple species, survey efforts for California least ternand western snowy plover were combined. The accessibility and size of each nesting sitedictated survey methods. STI and NS1 were surveyed by vehicle from the West Levee Roadprior to arrival of the California least terns and then on foot once nesting was initiated. NTI wasused primarily by nesting elegant tern and black skimmer and, therefore, required minimalmonitoring for California least tern and western snowy plover. Observations of this nesting sitewere made from the West Levee Road. NS2 was surveyed by vehicle from the East Levee Roadusing a spotting scope with occasional survey efforts occurring on foot to better map individualnest sites. NS3 was surveyed by vehicle from the north end of the site. The large majority ofsuitable western snowy plover nesting habitat in the Seasonal Ponds was visible from the roadnetwork. Therefore, the observer(s) would slowly drive along the roads that subdivide this area.Frequent stops were made to examine specific areas adjacent to the road with binoculars orspotting scope without exiting the vehicle.Survey work was typically completed at each nesting site between 0800 and 1200 hours. Duringeach survey for California least tern and western snowy plover, observers documented thelocation of any nests. NS1, NS2, and NS3 were sectioned by markers, which formed the basisfor data recording. NS1 is significantly larger than the other two nest sites; therefore, NS1 wassectioned south to north from A though CC in a regular grid. Each least tern and snowy plovernest located during survey efforts was marked with a numbered tongue depressor and mapped forease of relocation on subsequent visits.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 76

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFor western snowy plover other data collected includethe gender of the incubating adult, length of incubation(days), number of eggs in the clutch, condition of thenest (e.g. signs of disturbance), and the fate of each nest(hatched, predated, or abandoned). Close examination ofnests was usually conducted only once or twice per nestin order to minimize disturbance of nesting birds. Assnowy plover nests were located they were protectedfrom predation by mini-exclosures (MEs) placed over thenest. It was usually possible to follow the movementsand determine the fate of the chicks from each broodsince there was dispersion over space and time sufficientto differentiate between broods. These regular broodobservations were conducted to determine chick survivalPhoto of American crow perched on an activesnowy plover nest covered with a mini-exclosure(ME).or fledgling production, as well as to detect movement between zones and use of specific cellsfor brood rearing.For California least tern, data collected included length of incubation (days), number of eggs inthe clutch, condition of the nest (e.g. signs of disturbance), and the fate of each nest (hatched,predated, or abandoned). Any signs of disturbance within the tern colonies were also recorded.Additional observations on the general status of the colony (e.g. presence of other nestingspecies, evidence of predation, etc.) were made during each survey. Observations of least ternchicks and fledglings were made to determine hatching and fledging success.In 2009, as in 2008, monitoring of nests on NS1 was very difficult due to the large number ofnesting birds besides the western snowy plover and California least tern, including blackskimmer, royal tern, and Caspian tern. These species typically nest on NTI. By the end of June,monitoring was modified to prevent the disruption of the nesting birds and their chicks. Mostnest data was collected prior to that time; however, fledglings for both the California least ternand the western snowy plover on NS1 had to be estimated.ResultsCalifornia Least TernThe data from the 2009 California least tern breeding season at Bolsa Chica Ecological Reservewere provided by CDFG and are summarized in Marschalek (2009).In 2009, California least terns arrived at Bolsa Chica on April 14 and were last observed on thesite August 23, which was very similar to past years. The terns nested primarily on NS1 andSTI, although one unsuccessful nest was located on NS3 (Table 1-15). California least terns didnot utilize NTI or NS2. The first nest was initiated on May 7 on the NS1 nesting site. Therewere a total of 317 California least tern nests at Bolsa Chica in 2009, an increase over 2008 (242nests). The average clutch size was 1.8 eggs per nest. From an estimated 285 pairs, a total of561 eggs were laid. Fledgling success for the 2009 season ranged from 265-363 fledglings witha rate of 0.83 to 1.15 fledglings per nest. This is compared to 15 fledglings (0.07 fledglings pernest) in 2007 and 100-150 fledglings (0.41 to 0.62 fledglings per nest) in 2008. The first leasttern fledgling of the year was recorded on June 23, 2009.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 77

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-15. 2009 California least tern reproductive success for each nesting locationLocation Total Nests Chicks Hatched FledglingsNest Site 1 240 335 225-289South Tern Island 76 77 40-74Nest Site 3 1 0 0Total 317 370 265-363California least tern nest predation was low with predation occurring at 15 nests (4.7% of allnests), and 35 nests (11.0% of total nests) were abandoned prior to hatching. This largeabandonment of nests occurred mainly on STI when 28 nests were abandoned during the secondwave of nesting. It is also estimated that 37 least tern nests (11.7% of total nests) weresubsequently lost through trampling by the larger terns and skimmers. In order to increasehatching success where California least tern nests overlapped with the larger terns and blackskimmers, some nests were encircled with wire fences measuring 20cm high and 1m in diameter.These circular fences provided some protection for the eggs and small chicks by discouragingtrampling by larger birds.The gull-billed tern was observed taking three chicks from NS1. This was the first time that thegull-billed tern was documented at Bolsa Chica. There was also a large cache of broken eggsand tern chick and adult remains found under a shrub on NS1. It is suspected that either anopossum or rats may have been responsible.Western Snowy PloverThe complete 2009 results for the western snowy plover breeding season at Bolsa Chica aresummarized in Knapp and Peterson (2009)(Appendix 1-G).The first western snowy plover nest of the year was observed on February 23, 2009, about amonth earlier than normal. The last nest hatched on August 6. Western snowy plovers nested onSTI, NTI, NS1, NS2, NS3, and a number of cells within the Seasonal Ponds, Future Full TidalBasin and Muted Tidal Basins (Table 1-16). A total of 70 nests were located at Bolsa Chica.Nine nests yielded 2-egg clutches, while 61 nests yielded 3-egg clutches. A total of 184 chickshatched from 201 total eggs laid during the 2009 nesting season.Seven nests were abandoned (Nests #1, 18, 27, 46, 47, 48, and 52). Nest #1 was probablyabandoned due to presence of a peregrine falcon on STI. Nest #18 on NTI was abandoned due toelegant tern harassment of adults attempting to reach the nest to incubate eggs. Nest #47 in Cell10, nest #48 in Cell 11, and nest #52 in NS2 were abandoned for unknown reasons. Two othernests (#27 and #46) contained non-viable eggs that were incubated by the respective females forunusually long periods. Nest #27 was incubated from May through July 21 and Nest #46 wasincubated from June 3 through August 30. This behavior is unexplained and has not been seenbefore at Bolsa Chica.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 78

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 1-16. 2009 Number of western snowy plover nests, nest fate, and reproductive success distributionby cell.Location Total Nests Nests FailedNests Hatched(# chicks)FledglingsSeasonal Ponds: 16 0 16 (42) 17Cell 9 1 0 1 (3) 2Cell 10 6 0 6 (17) 6Cell 11 2 0 2 (5) 2Cell 12 5 0 5 (13) 5Cell 13 1 0 1 (2) 0Road 1 0 1 (2) 2Future Full Tidal Basin: 9 0 9 (23) 4Cell 14 2 0 2 (6) 0Cell 19 2 0 2 (4) 2Cell 22 3 0 3(8) 2Cell 25 1 0 1 (3) 0Cell 30 1 0 1 (2) 0Muted Tidal Basin (Cell 45) 1 0 1 (3) 0Nest Site 1* 32 0 32 (90) 17-28Nest Site 2 3 1 2 (5) 1Nest Site 3 5 1 4 (12) 1North Tern Island 1 0 1 (3) 2South Tern Island 3 1 2 (6) 0Total 70 3 67 (184) 42-70*Nests were not monitored on NS1 for the entire season; therefore, # nests failed and # nests hatched are nests identified early inthe season and is an under-representation of the total. The # of fledglings is based on the counted minimum and estimatedmaximum number of fledglings for NS1.The eggs from nests #18, #47, and #48 were collected after determination that nest abandonmenthad occurred and eggs were subsequently given to the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center ofOrange County for possible salvage. Eight of the nine eggs delivered to the care center hatchedand were raised to fledging, banded, and subsequently released in the seasonal pond area ofBolsa Chica. In addition to the nine eggs, three abandoned chicks from Nest # 11 on NS1 weregiven to the care center for salvage. They were raised at the care center, fledged, and werebanded and subsequently released in the Bolsa Chica area.Of the 184 total chicks produced in 2009, a minimum of 42 and a maximum of 70 chicks (22.8 to38.0% of total chicks hatched) were estimated to have survived to fledge. The number offledglings per nest was estimated to be 0.60-1.00, slightly below the 0.85-1.62 fledges/nestestimated from the 2008 season. Of the 70 nests documented in 2009, 35 did not fledge chicks.Four of these nests did not produce chicks due to abandonment. One brood was depredated bygulls and two broods were depredated by squirrels shortly after hatching. The gull-billed ternwas also observed depredating at least three western snowy plover chicks and it was estimated tohave depredated a total of 18 plover chicks.There was potential for trampling of the chicks on NS1 due to overcrowding. The tight colonialstyle of nesting of the terns and black skimmers on NS1 did not exclude the snowy plover fromany portion of the nesting area. However, it is suspected that the presence of these larger speciesMerkel & Associates, Inc. 79

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reporton NS1 had an effect on the overall reproductive success of the snowy plover once the nestshatched and the chicks left the protection of the Mini-enclosures.The number of nests on NS1 has increased from 14 nests in 2006, the first year the site wasavailable for western snowy plover nesting, to 36 nests in 2008 to 32 nests in 2009. Some of thezones normally available for nesting remained flooded throughout the 2009-breeding season and,therefore, were unavailable for nesting plovers. Of note, NS2 was used in 2009 for the first timesince its creation.DiscussionReproductive success at Bolsa Chica for the California least tern was high in 2009 compared to2008 and 2007 but still lower than the successful years of 2005 and 2006. Bolsa Chica terncolony on STI experienced a large loss of nests through abandonment later in the nesting season.NS1, as in past years, experienced a large loss of nests due to trampling by other nesting ternsand black skimmers. Trampling was minimized by placing wire fencing around least tern nestsadjacent or within the skimmer colonies. The gull-billed tern was also responsible for the loss ofat least three least tern chicks.Reproductive success at Bolsa Chica for the western snowy plover was slightly lower than butstill comparable to prior years. Even though there were some problems and/or deterrents duringthe nesting season, the snowy plover was able to fledge between 0.60-1.00 fledges/nest. It issuspected that the greatest chick loss on NS1 was due to trampling by larger birds (terns andskimmers) and gull-billed tern depredation. There were also problems with flooding in severalcells within the Seasonal Ponds area that limited dry areas for nesting.Management of the California least tern andwestern snowy plover nesting sites isexpected to be adaptive due to enhancementof the Bolsa Chia area and the creation ofnew nesting and foraging areas. Manyrecommendations from past years have beenimplemented with good results and areexpected to continue. These actions include1) removing non-native plants withherbicides and by hand on all the man-madenest sites, thus keeping the area clear fornesting; 2) placing tiles on the nest sites forthe chicks to hide under, providingprotection from both predation andtrampling; 3) deploying Mini-enclosures on Non-native plant cover and terns on Nest Site 1.every western snowy plover nest to preventegg loss due to predation and trampling; 4) focusing predator monitoring and management onknown nest and chick predators. There are also a number of management issues that are stillunresolved although some effort has been made to improve or change the situation. These issuesinclude an on-going problem of overcrowding on NS1, water management in the SeasonalPonds, and the need to develop methods to increase nesting on NS2 and NS3.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 80

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report1.7. NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIESAn awareness of the importance of tracking the arrival and spread of non-native species hasincreased in recent years, particularly with the discovery of the invasive non-native seaweedCaulerpa taxifolia in nearby Huntington Harbour and in Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San DiegoCounty. Early detection of some species of invasive plants and animals may allow theopportunity for quick and economical response activities. These species may include non-nativeseaweeds such as Caulerpa spp., Sargassum filicinum, and Undaria pinnatifida, or terrestrialweed plants such as pampas grass or Arundo donax, as mentioned above. However, there areother non-native species that are already proliferating in regional coastal embayments and arelikely to invade the tidal areas of Bolsa Chica at some point in the future. While options torestrict these species from Bolsa Chica are limited, keeping good records on the time of arrivaland the degree of spread can be helpful for understanding the threat posed by these species toBolsa Chica, as well as for the general body of knowledge about these species.No new non-native marine invertebrates species were observed in 2009. Five of the six speciesfound in 2008 were captured in 2009 as well: the tunicates Styela plicata and S. clava, theinvasive oriental shrimp (Palaemon macrodactylus), the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilusgalloprovincialis), and the bryozoan Zoobotryon verticillatum. The Japanese mussel(Musculista. senhousia) was documented at Bolsa Chica in 2007 and 2008. Although it was notobserved in 2009, it is most certainly present at the site. Refer to the 2008 report (Merkel &Associates 2009b) for a discussion of the invasiveness, and degree of establishment regionally,of these six species.Japanese wireweed (Sargassum muticum) is a seaweed native to Japan that is widespread inSouthern California bays, commonly found on rock, riprap, or other hard substrate. In 2008 theseaweed had not yet colonized the riprap at Bolsa Chica, but was observed loose in the FTB,with its holdfasts secured to highly motile scallops (A. ventricosus) which were serving as minireefsfor the S. muticum to settle onto and be transported by. This was seen less frequently in2009 and colonization of the FTB riprap by S. muticum was not as extensive as had beenexpected. Future field work will also look for Sargassum filicinum, a related invasive speciesdiscovered in recent years in some southern California bays and estuaries, and at Catalina Island.Non-native vertebrates persisting in 2009 at Bolsa Chica included the yellowfin goby (the onlynon-native fish documented) and several birds, including rock pigeon and great-tailed grackle(Quiscalus mexicanus). The yellowfin goby was only captured in the MPM, not in the FTB orMTBs. The grackle is an invading species from Sonora or southern Arizona and is known tobreed at Bolsa Chica. Newly observed in 2009 was the gull-billed tern, which does not typicallyrange this far north, but appears to be extending its range as far north as Los Angeles County.There are numerous non-native plant species in the wetlands of southern California, however, theBolsa Chica Lowlands are fortunate to be devoid of two of the most invasive and difficultspecies: giant reed (Arundo donax) and pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana). There is little to nooccurrence of these two species within the study area. Any observations of these species will beimmediately reported to CDFG for removal. Hottentot fig (C. edulis) is widespread in thesystem and is being removed by CDFG and volunteer hand labor as resources permit. Blackmustard (Brassica nigra) is widespread on the road margins and along the northeast corner of thesite. Seasonally timed herbicide application would benefit the control efforts for this species.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 81

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportSeveral seedling Brazilian pepper trees (Schinus terebinthifolius) have sprouted in the northwestcorner of Cell 41. This non-native species is an aggressive invader that outcompetes nativevegetations and is very difficult to control once seedlings becomes established. Hand removal isonly recommended for small seedlings less than a few feet high, with foliar herbicides such astriclopyr or glyphosate applied to larger plants (Randall 2000). Prompt treatment and or removalof these seedlings is recommended if they are still present.Although outside of the study area, it was noted that the highly invasive plant perennialpepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) was present around the PCH parking lot at Inner Bolsa Bay. Itis an aggressive plant that can harm coastal wetlands by encroaching on native species,sometimes forming dense monotypic stands. It can invade pickleweed-dominated marshes(Howald 2000), especially marsh that does not receive regular tidal inundation. Therefore thespread of this plant by seed from Inner Bolsa Bay to the Seasonal Ponds, Future Full Tidal Basinand even Muted Tidal Basins is of concern because of its difficulty to control once in becomesestablished.Perennial pepperweed is a state-listed noxious weed in California and the California InvasivePlant Council lists the impact level of this plant as “High” and recommends prompt treatmentupon its discovery, if possible. Hand removal is not recommended. While treatment withherbicide would be more effective, repeated annual treatments would be necessary (Howald2000). The affected area is currently limited in its extent and an eradication effort isrecommended.Highly invasive Lepidium latifolium at Inner Bolsa Bay parkingMerkel & Associates, Inc. 82

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportII. PHYSICAL MONITORING PROGRAMThe physical monitoring program focuses on large-scale morphological changes of the BolsaChica system and tidal response to these changes. Principally, this monitoring includesevaluation of inlet shoaling, coastal beach response to inlet conditions and sand loss to the inletshoal, and tidal reaction to shoal development. The physical monitoring program is intended tomonitor changes in relation to management needs, and to adaptively evaluate and recommendadjustment of maintenance and management triggers where appropriate to ensure health of thesystem and protection of coastal beach resources.2.1. INLET FLOOD SHOALIntroductionAs beach sand migrates down the coastline, it is made available for capture by flood tidesentering the Bolsa Chica Full Tidal Basin (FTB). A portion of this incoming sand is moved backout to the beach with the ebbing tide, while a portion of the sand settles to form a flood shoalinside the inlet. As the flood shoal matures, it begins to restrict ebbing tidal flow, therebydiminishing, or muting, the full tidal range in the system relative to the tidal range that wouldexist without the flood shoal. Therefore, a monitoring, maintenance, and maintenance dredgingprogram was incorporated into the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project and is beingimplemented as an essential component to the long-term health and viability of the system.An additional factor affecting the functioning of the FTB in the early years post-restoration is thestatus of the various tidal basins. The oversized inlet of Bolsa Chica was designed toaccommodate the tidal prism of the FTB, the three Muted Tidal Basins (MTBs), and the FutureFull Tidal Basin (FFTB). From the time of opening and throughout 2007, only the FTB suppliedtidal prism through the inlet. In February 2008, the West MTB was opened adding additionalmuted prism to the FTB. The Central and East MTB remained closed through the remainder of2008 and 2009. The FFTB is a project element envisioned for a time well in the future when oilextraction operations are completed at the site, and will, therefore, not be providing tidal prismfor some years to come. As a result of the oversizing of the inlet without bringing all basins online,tidal velocities through the inlet were too low to maintain the full channel width betweenthe jetties. Therefore sedimentation has occurred in the inlet channel as would be expected, butat a higher rate than anticipated once all basins are open in the future. As additional tidal prismis added to the system, the inlet mouth is expected to increase in cross-sectional area in responseto the higher tidal velocity required to feed the system during tidal exchanges.To track the size and location of the inlet flood shoal, a monitoring program was implemented inconjunction with tidal monitoring to determine if and when a maintenance dredging event iswarranted. The 2008 tidal monitoring revealed the need for maintenance dredging in 2009. Thiswork is detailed in Section III - Maintenance Dredging Program; however, the monitoring of theshoal before and after the dredging is detailed in this chapter.MethodologyThe rate and distribution of sand accretion in the FTB inlet was assessed on January 19, 2007,June 27, 2007, January 10, 2008, and July 1, 2008 prior to the first maintenance dredging event.After the January 2007 survey it became clear that a larger area needed to be surveyed to captureMerkel & Associates, Inc. 83

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportthe extent of the shoaling; therefore, all following surveys extended a considerable distancefurther to the north. A survey was also conducted on December 23, 2008 by the maintenancedredging contractor hired to remove the flood shoal in early 2009. This survey was performedby the dredging contractor’s surveyor, CLE Engineering, Inc., and was intended to document thepre-dredge bathymetric condition. Following completion of the dredging, a post-dredge surveywas preformed by CLE Engineering on April 14, 2009. M&A conducted a survey one monthlater on May 14, 2009 to document the rate of accretion immediately post-dredge, and again onJuly 28, 2009, and January 29, 2010 (presented in this report) to document change in the secondhalf of 2009.The M&A surveys were conducted from a small survey vessel with sub-meter accurate DGPSand a survey-grade SyQuest Hydrobox ® fathometer. Land surveying was conducted using a totalstation to assess areas that were too shallow for hydrographic surveys. A logger was deployedduring the survey to measure tidal elevation. The bathymetric survey area was previouslypresented in Figure 1-1. The methodology for the CLE surveys conducted in December 2008and April 2009 was comparable to work completed by M&A, as described above. TheDecember 2008 survey area did not cover the western edge of designated survey area, thereforean additional survey was conducted by CLE on January 28, 2009 to fill this gap. It was assumedthat these data generally reflected the conditions in this area at the time of the December 23,2008 survey, as this area is not an area of high deposition, nor erosion.Data from the vessel-based bathymetric assessment were post-processed to correct for tidalelevations at the time of the survey, and the boat and shore data was used to develop bathymetriccontour plots for the basin. These contour plots were aligned with a plot of the same area fromthe post-construction, pre-opening, contour data collected on August 20, 2006 and provided byMoffatt & Nichol.To estimate the rate of sand influx in the FTB, a sediment assessment polygon encompassing thearea of shoal formation was established. The changes in volume within this polygon over timewere quantified, both between surveys and in comparison to the pre-opening conditions inAugust 2006.ResultsThe contour plots for the pre-opening survey, select 2008 surveys, and both 2009 surveys arepresented in Figure 2-1. The January 2010 survey results are also presented to show changesthat occurred in the second half of 2009. Plots of all past surveys can be found in prior annualreports. The net volume of sediment accreted within the assessment polygon for all surveys wasevaluated based on changes from the pre-opening conditions as well as prior post-openingsurveys and is presented in Table 2-1. The net accretion takes into the account minor losses ofsediment due to erosion. The pre-dredge survey conducted in December 2008 prior to the firstmaintenance dredging event documented a net 204,704 m 3 accreted since the basin was opened.The assessment area was larger than the area targeted by the maintenance dredging, which waslimited to areas where the accumulation was deep enough to effectively dredge and where it washaving a substantive effect on the constraint at the inlet. Therefore the post-dredge survey stillshowed a 94,281 m 3 net accretion in comparison to the initial profile.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 84

January 2007January 2008SedimentAssessmentPolygonDecember 2008 (pre-dredge)April 2009 (post-dredge)Depth (m)2.6 - 3.02.1 - 2.51.6 - 2.01.1 - 1.50.6 - 1.00.1 - 0.5-0.4 - 0.0-0.9 - -0.5-1.4 - -1.0-1.9 - -1.5-2.4 - -2.0-2.9 - -2.5-3.4 - -3.0-3.8 - -3.5July 2009January 2010μFull Tidal basin inlet bathymetry(including pre- and post-dredge conditions) Figure 2-1Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 2-1. Net increase in inlet sediment volume in comparison to pre-opening design conditions.Survey date Net Sediment Accretion (m 3 )August 2006 (pre-opening) 0January 2007 + 59,481June 2007 + 122,105January 2008 + 158,403July 2008 + 180,905December 2008 (before first maintenance dredging) + 204,704April 2009 (post-dredge) +94,281May 2009 +98,562July 2009 +107,305January 2010 +163,104The total rate of volume change from the basin opening in August 2006 to the December 2008survey, roughly 28 months later, was approximately 240 m 3 /day. The first maintenance dredgingwas then performed from January to April 2009. The rate of volume change from the postdredgesurvey in April 2009 through the end of the year (based on the January 2010 survey) wasapproximately 241 m 3 /day. It is important to note, however, that this average rate does notrepresent the actual accretion per day, as deposition and erosion occurred throughout the periodat an uneven rate.To examine this variable rate, the contour plots of the surveys were compared to each other toquantify areas of erosion and accretion between surveys. These comparisons are presentedgraphically in Figure 2-2. Only select surveys are presented here, though all surveys wereanalyzed in prior annual reports. The May 2009 survey is not shown but will be discussedbelow. Included in the figure is a table that tracks the accretion and erosion of sediment overtime within the sediment assessment polygon. As anticipated, there was a large input of sandbetween the basin opening on August 24, 2006 and the first survey on January 19, 2007, with anaverage of 402 m 3 /day. The influx rate then decreased during the next two years, to an averageof 152 m 3 /day from January 2007 to December 2008 (Figure 2-2). Immediately following the2009 dredge completion, the average net influx rate remained low at 117 m 3 /day, ramping upduring the second half of the year to 230 m 3 /day.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 86

Aug06 to Jan07Jan07 to Dec08assumedno changeassumedno changeSedimentAssessmentPolygonDec08 to Apr09(dredge period)Apr09 to Jul09Jul09 to Jan10Erosion/Accretion (m)3.1 - 3.52.6 - 3.02.1 - 2.51.6 - 2.01.1 - 1.50.6 - 1.00.1 - 0.5-0.4 - 0.0-0.9 - -0.5-1.4 - -1.0-1.9 - -1.5-2.4 - -2.0-2.9 - -2.5-3.4 - -3.0-4.2 - -3.5Survey Range Time Erosion Accretion Net Influx Influx Rateday m 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 /dayAug06 - Jan07 148 -1,157 60,638 59,481 402Jan07 - Dec08 702 8,862 115,409 106,547 152Dec08 - Apr09 112 112,291 10,793 -101,498 -906Apr09 - Jul09 105 15,576 27,818 12,242 117Jul09 - Jan10 185 8,419 50,968 42,549 230μFull Tidal Basin accretion and erosion comparisons between surveysFigure 2-2Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-3 presents the accretion rate graphically as net sediment accretion per month within theassessment area shown in Figure 2-1. Again, the averages do not represent the actual accretionper day or month, as field observations noted that deposition and erosion occurred at an unevenrate over time. The figure includes the sediment changes documented by the two interim surveysconducted on April 14 and May 14, 2009. Sand was re-deposited into the basin at a moderaterate in the first month post-dredge, with a net of 2,078 m 3 accreted. From May to the end of theyear, the accretion rate was back to rates similar to those documented in the first year after thebasin was opened.15,000Net Accretion Rate (m 3 /month)10,0005,000012,139 m 3 /moOpeningthroughJan. 20078,327 m 3 /moJan. 2007 toJune 20075,419 m 3 /moJune 2007 toJan. 20083,775 m 3 /moJan. 2008 toJuly 20084,247 m 3 /moJuly 2008 toDec. 20081st MaintenanceDredgeDec. 2008 toApril 092,078 m 3 /moApril 09 toMay 096,463 m 3 /moFigure 2-3. Net sediment accretion rate per month since the FTB opening in August 2006May 09 toJuly 097,092 m 3 /moJuly 09 toJan. 10A grain size analysis of the sand accreted in the FTB inlet was conducted in anticipation of the2009 maintenance dredging. The shoal sediment was documented to be 99% sand with minorcomponents of fine gravel (shell hash) and silt/clay fractions (M&A 2008b).DiscussionThe development of the inlet flood shoal since the FTB was opened to the ocean has exhibitedpatterns typical of coastal wetland systems. Shoals initially develop as individual depositionalfans along the primary flow alignment. As sediments are deposited, the resistance to flow alongthe channel increases and shoals continue to build until such time as the flows break out of themain channel and define a new primary channel. As a result of the continued process, the floodshoal builds as a series of elongated lobes running into the basin. These are subsequentlymodified by wave and current erosion as water moves past and across the deposited fan.Preliminary engineering modeling predicted a two-year accumulation volume of 230,000 m 3 inthese shoals, which compares favorable to the measured accumulation of 204,704 m 3 in just overtwo years. The initial influx of sand seen in Figure 2-3 likely resulted from the provision of localsource sand from the pre-filled ebb bar and the beach around the mouth. Subsequent reducedrates of infill may illustrate some achievement of stability following the initial system loading.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 88

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFollowing the maintenance dredging in 2009, the shoal reformed in a very similar pattern to thatseen in 2007 and 2008, with the primarily channel remaining on the eastern side of the inlet. Theslow rate of influx initially seen in the months after the dredging may be due to limited littoralsand transport and benign surf conditions for the period immediately following maintenancedredging and prior to summer beach building. During the second half of the year when theaccretion rate increased, increased sand migration likely resulted in more rapid flood shoaldevelopment.An element of the shoal formation that is not adequately captured by bathymetric surveyanalyses is the role of oceanic wave and swell propagation though the inlet in building sand barsand elevated shoals both within the channel and inside the FTB. While the principal process thattransports sand into the basin is tidal exchange, waves running up the channel push sand tohigher elevation beaches and shoals than can not be generated by tidal transport alone. Whiletidal flows can build shoals to an elevation of a foot or two above mean sea level, wave energyhas the potential to lift sand to higher elevations. Both prior to and after the 2009 dredging, waveenergy built a fringe shoal on the western corner where the inlet joins the basin to elevationsabove the highest tides occurring within the FTB. One substantial effect of the development ofthis fringe shoal has been to force all flows to the eastern portion of the channel, where increasedvelocities have resulted in the scour of a deep hole off the end of a point along the shoreline.2.2. TIDAL MONITORINGIntroductionTidal monitoring is fundamental to understanding the development of the physical and biologicalstructure of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. As a non-estuarine system with minimal freshwaterinput, oceanic tides combined with winds are the principal hydrodynamic forces within thewetlands. The short and long-term fluctuations in tidal elevations determine the composition andzonation of species within the intertidal marsh habitats. Sediments carried into the Bolsa ChicaLowlands via tidal currents are deposited within the system. This change to the physicalstructure forms a feedback loop where tide profiles are altered.Currently, accretion and erosion of sand within the flood shoal of the FTB has the greatestimpact on tidal conditions (refer to Section 2.1). The deposition of sand near the entrance of theFTB results in tidal lag and muting. Tidal lag refers to the temporal lag between oceanic tidalevents (high tide, low tide, etc.) and those same events within the FTB. Tidal muting refers tothe narrowing of the tidal prism (elevational change between high and low tides). The depositionof sand within the FTB results in restrictions to the flow of water and prevents the timing andextent of tidal events within the FTB from being the same as those of the open coast.Tidal muting and loss of drainage affect inundation frequency within the intertidal zone. Thiscreates physical stress that can result in lowered diversity or altered habitat distributions. Theinundation frequency further affects oxidation-reduction potential in the sediments. Thesechanges in tidal hydroperiods and associated factors can have substantial consequences onmudflats and marshland development. Tidal monitoring can be used to monitor the extent ofphysical change within the system, plan dredge cycles, and therefore, provide suitable tidalranges to protect intertidal habitats and the species that depend on them.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 89

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMethodologyTidal monitoring was begun in the FTB on December 21, 2006 at 11:06 and has been continuoussince then with data collected at 6-minute intervals (except where noted below). The tidal datawere collected with a RBR Instruments TGR2050 pressure gauge. The TGR2050 has a depthaccuracy of ± 5 mm and a resolution of ± 0.1 mm. A second TGR2050 pressure gauge wasdeployed nearby, on shore and used to correct the submerged pressure gauge for atmosphericpressure.The pressure data obtained from the submerged and atmospheric pressure gauges were used tocalculate water depth at the sensor with the following formula:Depth = (P w – P atm ) / (λ * 0.980665);where depth is the water depth in meters at the pressure gauge, P w is the pressure in deciBarsread at the in-water pressure gauge, P atm is the local atmospheric pressure in deciBars, λ is thedensity of seawater measured at the study site (1.027 g/cm 3 ), and 0.980665 is a gravitationalconstant (RBR 2007).The tide logger was held in an aluminum bracket mounted to the FTB bulkhead at the east watercontrol structure. The initial bracket configuration resulted in a sensor elevation of –0.05 mNAVD. This elevation was not sufficient to capture the lower low tides during spring tidalcycles. On January 19, 2007 at 13:00, the bracket was extended, resulting in a sensor elevationof –0.68 m NAVD. A subsequent elevational measurement of the FTB bulkhead by CoastalFrontiers resulted in adjustment of the sensor elevation to –0.72 m NAVD. This sensor elevationwas used for data reported in the 2007 annual report. In 2008, it was learned that nearby OrangeCounty elevational benchmarks had been adjusted 7 cm to account for local subsidence. Thus,the tide stations sensor elevation was corrected to –0.79 m NAVD. This change, along with aminor calculation error discovered during analysis of the 2008 data, resulted in minor changes topreviously reported values. When appropriate, these corrections are provided in the below text.Absolute tidal elevations were calculated by adjusting the 6-minute water depth data with thesensor elevation. The recorded tides were compared with tides measured at the nearest NOAAtidal station, located 22.5 km (14 miles) north in Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LAOH) (NOAAStation 9410660). The NOAA gauge is located immediately adjacent to the open ocean, and therecorded tides represent the ocean tidal conditions. The data were obtained from the NOAATides and Currents website (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov). The obtained data were nottemporally corrected based on distance to the study site because the correction is less than thelogging period. The tidal data, tidal muting, and tidal lag analyses presented in this chapter arebased on data collected January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 and compared to the LAOHtidal station data.Tidal data were analyzed to produce comparisons of tidal lag and tidal muting between the FTBtides and open coastal tide data from the LAOH tidal monitoring station. In prior reports onlythe lower low tides were analyzed to compare tidal muting between the FTB and LAOH. In thisreport, tidal lag and muting for all daily tidal events (higher high tide, lower high tide [hereafterreferred to as high tide], lower low tide, higher low tide[hereafter referred to as low tide]) iscompared.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 90

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportThere were two periods with interrupted tidal data in 2009. Between June 24 and July 12, 2009,an electrical problem within the deployed tide logger resulted in excessive current draw andpremature battery failure. The logger was replaced as part of routine maintenance and sent in forrepair. The second period of interrupted data resulted when the same logger was put back intoservice. Between November 5 and December 2, 2009 battery failure resulted in intermittent datafor the first week and then loss of all data for the remainder of the period. The second failurewas the result of improper diagnosis and repair during the first repair. As of this writing, thelogger is operable and without issue.ResultsThe results of tidal lag and muting analyses by tidal event illustrate that tidal lag and muting arenot similar among tidal events. Tidal lag was most notable during lower low tides, almostnegligible during higher high tides, and intermediate for low tides and high tides (Figure 2-4).The average tidal lag (mean ± 1 SE) for each of the tidal events was 94 ± 2.0, 36 ± 1.7, 25 ± 1.3,12 ± 1.0 minutes for the lower low tides, low tides, high tides, and higher high tides, respectively(Figure 2-5). The maximum observed lag for 2009 was 186 minutes observed during a lowerlow tide on January 9, 2009.Comparison of the FTB tide data against the NOAA tide station LAOH shows that the FTB doesnot completely drain to local oceanic sea levels during outgoing tides (Figure 2-6). Tidal mutingis most significant during lower low tides. Average tidal muting (mean ± 1 SE) in 2009 duringlower low tides was 0.26 ± 0.01 m (Figure 2-7). Average tidal muting was much lower duringother tidal events at 0.06 ± .003 m during low tides and less than 0.01 m during high tides andhigher high tides. The maximum observed muting for 2009 was 0.91 m at the lower low tide onJanuary 10, 2009.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 91

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report200High Water Temporal Tide Lag 2009200Higher High Water Temporal Tide Lag 2009180180160160140140120120100100Lag (minutes)80604020Lag (minutes)8060402000-20-20-40-40-60-60-80Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec-80Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthMean Mean±SE Min-MaxMonthMean Mean±SE Min-MaxLag (minutes)200180160140120100806040200-20-40-60-80Low Water Temporal Tide Lag 2009Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthMean Mean±SE Mi n-MaxLag (minutes)Lower Low Water Temporal Tide Lag 2009Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecFigure 2-4. The average monthly tidal lag calculated for high tides (top left), higher high tides (top right), low tides (bottom left) and lower low tides(bottom right).200180160140120100806040200-20-40-60-80MonthMean Mean±SE Min-MaxMerkel & Associates, Inc. 92

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-5. The average 2009 tidal lag in minutes calculated for each tide event. Bars are 1 standard error of the mean.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 93

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report1.0High Water Tide Muting 20091.0Higher High Water Tide Muting 20090.90.90.80.80.70.7Muting (meters)0.60.50.40.30.2Muting (meters)0.60.50.40.30.20.10.10.00.0-0.1-0.1-0.2Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec-0.2Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthMean Mean±SE Min-MaxMonthMean Mean±SE Min-Max1.0Low Water Tide Muting 20091.0Lower Low Water Tide Muting 20090.90.90.80.80.70.7Muting (meters)0.60.50.40.30.2Muting (meters)0.60.50.40.30.20.10.10.00.0-0.1-0.1-0.2Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec-0.2Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthMean Mean±SE Min-MaxFigure 2-6. Average monthly tidal muting calculated for high tides (top left), higher high tides (top right), low tides (bottom left) and lower low tides(bottom right).MonthMean Mean±SE Min-MaxMerkel & Associates, Inc. 94

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-7. Average 2009 tidal muting in meters calculated for each tide event. Bars are 1 standard error of the mean.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 95

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportSpring tides refer to the exceptionally high and low tides that occur monthly at the time of thenew or full moon; the greatest spring tides occur during the autumnal and vernal equinoxes. Thelonger-term trends in lower low spring tide muting are illustrated in Figure 2-8. Analysis of thelowest spring tides illustrates when tidal muting was the most severe and can be used as a tool todirect management actions relative to maintaining the muted tidal basins. Lower-low tide springtide muting was relatively small (less than 0.4 m NAVD) for the first year following the openingof the FTB. Muting then increased slightly in Fall 2007 and was again steady until Spring 2008.In spring 2008 muting increased significantly and remained high until the 2009 dredging.Increased tidal muting meant that FTB water levels limited the functioning of the Muted TidalBasins. Figure 2-9 illustrates the spring tide lower low water levels since monitoring beganrelative to the operating ranges of the muted tidal basins (WMTB = west muted tidal basin,CMTB = central muted tidal basin, EMTB = east muted tidal basin). The filled blue area in thefigure represents the lowest obtained water level in the FTB during spring tides. When the FTBwater level is below the operating range of a given MTB, that MTB is capable of draining to theFTB.Figure 2-8. Maximum spring low tide muting (Muting reflects the maximum difference between theFTB and corresponding LAOH low tides).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 96

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-9. Lower low spring tide levels in the FTB relative to the approximate operating ranges of themuted tidal basins.Plots of tidal elevations within the FTB and LAOH for 2009 are presented on a monthly basis forthe entire data set in Appendix 2-A. Figure 2-10 shows a sample tidal comparison of the FTBand LAOH during February 2009. The figure illustrates the differences in tidal elevationsachieved between the FTB and LAOH. Tidal lag and muting are illustrated by noting where thetwo tidal curves do not overlap.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 97

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFebruary 2009Tide (m NAVD)2.42.221.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20-0.2-0.4-0.6FTBLAOHFigure 2-10. Example comparison of recorded tides (February 2009) at FTB with the ocean tides(LAOH).DiscussionTidal lag and muting were significant in 2009, but were reduced relative to 2008. Tidal lag andmuting decreased precipitously immediately following the dredging that occurred betweenJanuary and April 2009. Lower low water temporal lag and elevational muting were relativelyhigh in January and February 2009, but had decreased near the end of dredging in March 2009(Figure 2-4 and 2-5). Tidal lag and muting were then relatively constant until November 2009.In November, tidal lag and muting increased slightly. This increase is largely an artifact of thereduced data set that resulted from the logger failure described in the methods. The lack of acomplete data set for the month meant that the average was skewed toward the mean of a lessthan representative dataset. In this case, the spring tide series during the first week of Novemberwas captured while both neap series and the new moon spring series were absent. This meansthat data for November were only available for the period that has been shown by the rest of thedataset to exhibit the greatest lag and muting. Thus, the peak in lag and muting in Novembershould be viewed with caution.The dredging in early 2009 achieved the goal of reducing tidal lag and muting and, therefore,improved the tidal conditions for habitat values and the functioning of the muted tidal basins.However, the lag and muting were not restored to levels observed after the initial opening of theFTB in 2006. Preliminary engineering predictions of the effect of shoaling on tidal muting werethat the tide range would reach 2.256 m and muting of the low tide to reach 0.244 m. Generally,the muted tidal range under the post-construction condition in 2007 met the target of the “fullMerkel & Associates, Inc. 98

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reporttidal range” objective of the project planning documents. However, further shoal development in2008 caused the range to substantively diminish. Following the dredging in 2009, the range wasrestored 1.68 to 1.88 based on the April 2009 full moon and new moon spring tides, respectively.The maximum muting during the April 2009 full moon and new moon spring tides was 0.32 mand 0.42 m, respectively. The inability of the FTB to obtain the greater range and lower mutingobserved post-construction was likely due to continued restriction in the FTB inlet channel. Theinlet channel was not dredged in 2009. Thus, while the 2009 dredging had a positive effect ontidal conditions, it may take less time following the 2009 maintenance dredging for the FTB toreach levels of tidal lag and muting that significantly impair the functioning of the system.It was expected that the tidal range would gradually decrease and muting of the low tide wouldincrease over time. It was further expected that muting and lag would become more severe dueto effects of flood shoal development in the FTB until the implementation of the first dredgingevent. Although muting was improved immediately following the dredging, the FTB lower lowwater levels were still high enough to significantly impact the functioning of the MTBs. Thewater levels in the FTB were only occasionally low enough to allow drainage of the EMTB in2009 (Figure 2-9). The FTB must be below the operating range of an MTB for the MTB to drainout. The fact that the lowest FTB tides were often within the operating range of the EMTB (andtherefore no drainage could occur) shows that even if the EMTB had been open to the FTB in2009, minimal water movement would have occurred. Given the restricted period of time theFTB actually was at such low levels, the EMTB would have been unlikely to perform itsintended tidal functions had it been open.The higher operating range of the CMTB means that it could have been operated in 2009, thoughwith significant limitation (Figure 2-9). The elevated water levels in the FTB would have limitedthe drainage of the CMTB, but every month in 2009 did have spring tides with FTB water levelsbelow the operating range of the CMTB, at which time the CMTB could have drained. Had thisbasin been open in 2009, tidal water could have been occasionally allowed in with theknowledge that it would drain back out during those spring tide series.The operating range of the WMTB was well above the low spring tide elevations of the FTBthroughout 2009 and has been since the opening of the FTB (Figure 2-6). The basin was openand functioning throughout 2009 with near daily fluctuations in water levels. As tidal mutingincreased within the FTB, the difference in water elevations between the FTB and WMTBbecame restricted such that the WMTB did not empty efficiently. This meant that the WMTBcontinued to rise and fall with changing tides, but did so with a decreased tidal range. Thisrepresents tidal muting within a muted tidal basin.During preliminary engineering, tidal predictions were based on a theoretical average spring tidalcondition, not the maximum spring tide condition noted in the muting analysis (Figure 2-8).Because of the importance of the low tide muting and lag to the drain-fill hydraulics of theMTBs, these maximum drain-out conditions are of key interest as they pertain to properfunctioning of the MTBs. Although the FTB had improved tidal conditions in 2009 relative to2008, the significant muting during lower low tides meant that the potential functioning of theCMTB and the EMTB were significantly impaired. The MTB tidal conditions are stronglyinfluenced by the amount of water stored in them as a result of prior tidal history. Waters step upin elevation during moderate neap tidal series in the FTB and drain down during the moreMerkel & Associates, Inc. 99

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportextreme low water levels of spring tide series. This un-natural tidal fill and drain pattern isrequired to provide gravity driven muted tides to marshlands that are located at elevations wellbelow mean sea level. Additionally, Freeman Creek, which is key to site-wide drainage ofaccumulated rainfall out to the FTB, operates by gravity as well. The FTB muting continued tokeep FTB waters at elevations too high for Freeman Creek to drain by gravity. Mobile pumpshad to be used to drain water from Freeman Creek to the FTB during wet spring months in 2009.In the Bolsa Chica Lowland Restoration Project Biological Monitoring and Follow-up Plan, adredging trigger was proposed as follows: “a tidal muting of the average low tide elevations(Mean Low Water) on the order of 0.5 feet would indicate that the flood shoal maintenancedredging was warranted”. This should be revised since the Mean Low Water in the FTB isunlikely to ever be muted prior to failing of the required MTB and Freeman Creek drain-outconditions. The spring low tide would be a more appropriate parameter to gauge the muting inthe FTB.If one of the management objectives relative to the MTBs is to have frequent tidal movement tomaintain water quality for fisheries habitat, the EMTB becomes the limiting factor relative tothat objective. The EMTB is the lowest of the MTBs. As such, it requires lower FTB tide levelsin order to drain. Given the data presented in Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8, FTB spring low tidelevels need to be between 0.0 and 0.1 meters NAVD for the EMTB to occasionally drain. Giventhat the average ocean spring low tide elevation from 2007 through 2009 was –0.37 m NAVD,an operational goal of spring low tide muting of less than 0.45 meters is necessary to haveoccasional tidal movement of water within the EMTB. It is too early to make this goal an actualdredge trigger, though this condition was achieved within five months of the completion ofdredging in 2009. Future data collection and observation relative to future dredge events can beused to determine the validity of making this objective a dredge trigger. It is also possible thatfuture management objectives can be established that alter the acceptable amount of mutingwithin the FTB. For instance, removal of the need for occasional tidal movement of water in theEMTB would raise the objective substantially without removing the EMTB as a source of coastalsalt marsh habitat.2.3. BEACH MONITORINGIntroductionThe objective of the beach monitoring program is to develop a quantitative understanding ofchanges in the condition of the beaches adjacent to the newly constructed Full Tidal Basin (FTB)entrance channel. The study area includes portions of the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Cliffsshorelines. The monitoring program, which commenced in January 2007, is comprised of semiannualbeach profile surveys and monthly beach width measurements at seven sites located alonga 5.3 km section of coastline between Bolsa Chica State Beach and 17 th Street in HuntingtonBeach. Coastal Frontiers Corporation conducted the beach profile surveys, while Moffatt andNichol performed the beach width measurements. The historical research and collected dataanalysis was conducted by Coastal Frontiers Corporation.Figure 2-11 shows the locations of the beach profile transects used in the monitoring program.Two of these were established specifically for the monitoring program and were first surveyed inJanuary 2007. Five of the transects had been established previously and were included in theMerkel & Associates, Inc. 100

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportCoast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study for the Orange County Region (CCSTWS-OC) conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2002).Transect establishment/recovery activities were conducted prior to the commencement of theinitial beach profile survey. The initial beach profile survey for the Bolsa Chica LowlandsRestoration Project was conducted in January 2007. Additional surveys have been performedduring each of the subsequent May and October time periods in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Themonthly beach width measurements also commenced in January 2007. The monitoring activitieswere detailed previously by Coastal Frontiers (2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b, 2010)and are discussed under the methodology section below.Beach profile plots accompany this report in Appendix 2-B. Summary tables and figures areinterspersed with the text, while supporting data are provided in Appendices 2-C, 2-D, 2-E, and2-F.Historical Background InformationThe Bolsa Chica study area is contained within the Huntington Beach littoral cell, which spansthe shoreline from the East Jetty of Anaheim Bay to the Newport Harbor Entrance. The area hasbeen studied extensively as part of the CCSTWS-OC (USACE 2002) and in prior federal studies.Prior to significant coastal development, sand was delivered to the littoral cell from the SanGabriel and Santa Ana Rivers, with modest input from coastal bluff erosion. The littoraltransport regime changed substantially following construction of the Long Beach/Los AngelesHarbor Complex, the jetties at Anaheim Bay (for the U.S. Navy Weapons Station, Seal Beach),and numerous flood control measures. Coastal erosion was particularly severe in Surfside-Sunset Beach and West Newport Beach.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 101

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-11. Location map.In response to the loss of private and public property caused by erosion, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, in concert with the State of California and the County of Orange, has undertakenperiodic beach nourishment operations in the Huntington Beach cell since 1964. The majority ofthe sand nourishment has been placed at Surfside-Sunset Beach, immediately upcoast of theBolsa Chica study area. Table 2-4 summarizes the beach nourishment history at Surfside-SunsetBeach.The beaches along the Bolsa Chica study area benefited as the downdrift recipient of theSurfside-Sunset nourishment material. During the 34-year period between 1963 and 1997, thebeaches advanced at four of the five historical transects included in the Bolsa Chica monitoringprogram. Mean sea level (MSL) shoreline advance ranged from 14 m at Transect 423+89 to 71m at Transect 350+71. The only occurrence of shoreline retreat during the 34-yr period was aloss of 18 m at Transect 378+28, located at Huntington Cliffs. The volume of sand above MSLincreased in parallel to the beach width changes during the period. The shorezone volumes inthe study area, which incorporate the sediment changes further offshore, increased at all of thesites. The greatest gains typically occurred prior to 1978 (USACE, 2002).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 102

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 2-4. Beach nourishment history.Date Placement Site Borrow Site Volume (m 3 )1964 Surfside/Sunset (Stage 1) Naval Weapons Station 3,058,0001971 Surfside/Sunset (Stage 4) Naval Weapons Station 1,728,0001979 Surfside/Sunset (Stage 7) Nearshore Borrow Pit 1,257,0001983 Surfside/Sunset (Stage 8) Naval Weapons Station 382,0001984 Surfside/Sunset (Stage 8) Nearshore Borrow Pits 1,147,0001984 Surfside/Sunset (Stage 8) Naval Weapons Station 497,0001988 Surfside/Sunset Naval Weapons Station 138,0001990 Surfside/Sunset (Stage 9) Nearshore Borrow Pits 1,393,0001997 Surfside/Sunset (Stage 10) Nearshore Borrow Pit 1,223,0002002 Surfside/Sunset (Stage 11) Nearshore Borrow Pit 1,707,0002009 Surfside Sunset (Stage 12) Nearshore Borrow Pit 1,500,000Source: USACE, 2002; Mesa, 2008a, 2010Historical Shoreline DataHistorical shoreline data were used to provide context for the results of the current Bolsa Chicamonitoring program. The available beach profile and beach width measurement data aresummarized below.Historical Beach Profile DataAs indicated above, five of the beach profile transects used in the Bolsa Chica monitoringprogram were included in the CCSTWS-OC. The study incorporated data from 18 beach profilesurveys conducted between 1963 and 1997. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted anadditional beach profile survey of the area in March 2002. More recent shoreline data areavailable from several Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) surveys commissioned by theScripps Institution of Oceanography. These data were used to provide historical context for theresults of the current Bolsa Chica monitoring program.The survey data used in the CCSTWS-OC for the period 1963-1995 were retrieved from thearchives maintained by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. The 1997 and 2002 survey datawere obtained from the Coastal Frontiers Corporate archives. LIDAR data for October 2005 andMarch 2006 were retrieved from archives maintained by NOAA (NOAA 2008).The beach profile data used in the CCSTWS-OC are summarized in Figure 2-12. The historicalsurveys are not uniform with respect to profile location or areal extent. Most of the surveys wereperformed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of the Surfside-Sunset nourishmentprogram, navigation channel deepening at Anaheim Bay, or the CCSTWS-OC. The transectlocations differ among surveys due to the scope of each project and the perceived needs at thetime of each survey. Only the profile data obtained between 1992-1997, and more recently inMarch 2002, are coincident with the transect locations used in the CCSTWS-OC.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 103

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportSurfside-Sunset Bolsa Chica Huntington Cliffs Huntington Beach West Newport0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 800000May-632 Jul-64Oct-664 Apr-69May-736 Dec-78Jul-798 Apr-82Jan-830 Feb-92May-922 Nov-92May-934 Oct-93Apr-946 Oct-94May-958 Nov-970Station (feet)Surveyed TransectCCSTWS-OC TransectFigure 2-12. Beach profile data used in CCSTWS-OC.CCSTWS-OC Transectused in Bolsa ChicaMonitoring ProgramIn order to allow a comprehensive analysis based on the direct comparison of successive profilesat fixed locations, the CCSTWS-OC study employed a triangular irregular network (TIN) modelto develop a set of “synthetic” profiles for the survey years with data that were not coincidentwith the CCSTWS-OC transect locations (typically the pre-1992 surveys). For the purposes ofthe Bolsa Chica monitoring program, the same TIN model approach was used to “re-generate”the synthetic profiles used in the CCSTWS-OC. This approach was not necessary for the datathat were coincident with the transect locations (1992-1997 and 2002).The LIDAR data consists of densely spaced topographic points derived from an airborne survey.These data encompass the entire shoreline of the Bolsa Chica study area, but do not extendbelow the waterline. Beach profiles were created at each of the five historical transects and thetwo newly established transects using a TIN model developed from the LIDAR results.Synthetic profiles also were developed for the two newly established transects for March 2002and several of the pre-1992 CCSTWS-OC survey dates. Using the same TIN model approachdescribed above, synthetic profiles were created for each case when historical survey databracketed the location of the two newly established transects and at least one of the bracketingtransects was not coincident with a historical transect. Profiles were generated for the followingeight survey years: May 1963, July 1964, October 1966, April 1969, May 1973, April 1982,January 1983, and March 2002.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 104

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportHistorical Beach Width MeasurementsU.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel have acquired monthly beach width measurementsalong the Orange County coast since 1977. This extensive data set was initiated by RobertClancy. Since the late 1980’s, Chuck Mesa of the Corps has continued the monthly datacollection program.The data set contains measurements from a consistent back beach position to the break-in-slopeat the beach berm. The location of the berm does not represent a vertically-referenced shoreline(such as the MSL shoreline). However, the measurements do provide an indication of grosschanges in beach configuration. To differentiate these measurements from beach widths derivedfrom profile data or from the beach width measurements collected on behalf of the Bolsa Chicaproject, they will be referred to hereafter as “Corps beach widths”.Three of the measurement stations are located within or immediately adjacent to the Bolsa Chicastudy area: 247+88, 308+88, and 424+44. These stations are not coincident with the transectlocations used for the CCSTWS-OC or the Bolsa Chica monitoring program. The beach widthmeasurements at these stations were retrieved from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Mesa,2008b, 2009, 2010).MethodologyBeach Profile SurveysBeach profile data were obtained on two occasions in 2009: May 18 and October 26. Themethods employed were similar to those used on previous Orange County and Bolsa Chicasurveys. In consequence, the results are directly comparable. The data acquisition and reductionmethods are described below.The wading and bathymetric portions of each survey were performed concurrently by two crews,as illustrated in Figure 2-13. Data were acquired along each transect from the back beach to adepth of approximately 14 m below NAVD88. Wave heights typically were less than 1 m duringeach of the surveys.The beach and surf zone were surveyed using a total station and a survey rodman. The totalstation was used to determine the position and elevation of the beach at each location occupiedby the rodman. Each transect was surveyed from the back beach seaward through the surf zoneuntil the survey rod no longer protruded above the water surface when held vertically. Thislocation, typically in a water depth of 3.0 to 3.5 m below NAVD88, provided substantial overlapwith the landward portion of the bathymetric survey.Bathymetric data were collected with a digital acoustic echo sounder operated from a shallowdraftinflatable survey vessel. A dynamic motion sensor, which provides real-time corrections tothe echo sounder for wave-induced vessel heave, also was utilized. A GPS receiver was used todetermine the position of each sounding. To improve the accuracy of each position, differentialcorrections transmitted in real-time from U.S. Coast Guard beacons were utilized (DGPS). Allsystems were interfaced to a laptop computer using the Hypack Max survey package.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 105

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-13. Beach profile survey operations.The boat traveled along each transect from the offshore terminus to the surf zone guided byDGPS navigation. Soundings were acquired on a continuous basis (approximately 3 soundingsper second), while positions were recorded at 1-second intervals. The DGPS position data andsounding data were merged using the Hypack software, with interpolated positions beingassigned to the soundings acquired between position fixes.The calibration of the echo sounder was checked at periodic intervals during the survey using astandard “bar check” procedure. In addition, measurements of the speed of sound in sea wateralso were obtained at the offshore end of each transect using a recording conductivity,temperature, and depth (CTD) instrument.The data from the wading portion of each survey were processed using software developed byTrimble. The software read the raw total station data, and the coordinates and elevation of eachdata point were calculated and inserted into a CAD drawing.The raw data from the bathymetric portion of each survey consisted of Hypack files containingthe position data and heave-compensated soundings. These data were edited for outliers usingthe Hypack Single-Beam Processing Module. The dynamic motion sensor utilized during thesurvey removed the majority of the wave contamination from the record in real time. To furtherminimize the influence of wave-induced vessel motion on several transects, however, a smoothline was faired through the echo sounder record prior to digitizing it with the Hypack softwarepackage.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 106

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportCorrections for the draft of the transducer and the measured speed of sound in sea water thenwere applied to the measured depths. The speed-of-sound profiles were confirmed using theresults of the “bar check” calibration procedure. Finally, the corrected soundings were adjustedto NAVD88 datum using tide measurements made by the U.S. Department of Commerce,NOAA, at Los Angeles Harbor. To provide a more accurate representation of local tideconditions, the water levels recorded at Los Angeles Harbor were adjusted to the project siteusing the time and height differences published by NOAA (NOS, 2010).The adjusted soundings were thinned to a nominal horizontal interval of 3 m to produce a filesize suitable for developing beach profile plots. The resulting x, y, z data (easting, northing, andelevation) were inserted into the CAD drawing containing the wading data. As indicated above,the fieldwork was conducted in such a manner as to provide substantial overlap between thewading and bathymetric portions of the survey. The processed data were examined in this regionto insure that the two data sets were compatible. Once this confirmatory inspection had beencompleted, only the more detailed data in the region of overlap were retained (typically thebathymetric data). The less detailed data were purged, after which the wading and bathymetricdata were merged to create a single digital file.Based on past experience, the vertical accuracy of the processed soundings is approximately±15 cm. According to the Hemisphere GPS equipment specifications, the accuracy of horizontalpositions obtained in the manner described above is less than 1.0 m. The electronic total stationused to conduct the survey is capable of measuring ranges to within ±15 cm and elevationdifferences to within ±3 cm. Because the swimmer encountered waves and currents in the surfzone, however, the horizontal accuracy perpendicular to each transect (parallel to the shoreline)varied from minimal at short ranges to approximately ±5 m at the offshore end.Beach Width Measurement ProgramMonthly beach width measurements were acquired at each of the seven profile sites,commencing in January 2007. The measurements were collected at tide heights ranging from -0.67 m to 1.91 m NAVD88. The beach width was recorded as the distance from a permanentpoint at the back beach to the approximate intersection of the still water line and the beach face.The foreshore slope also was measured and recorded along with the date and time of theobservation. The measurements then were adjusted to approximate the MSL beach width usingthe foreshore slope and NOAA tide elevations. In addition, the distance from the back beach tothe berm was measured. Although inherently less accurate than surveys, the method provides acost-effective means to supplement the more accurate MSL beach widths derived from the semiannualbeach profile survey data.ResultsThe beach profile plots are provided in Appendix 2-B. MSL beach widths and sediment volumedata are presented in Appendices 2-C and 2-D, respectively. Appendix 2-E contains the beachwidth measurements obtained for the Bolsa Chica monitoring program, while Appendix 2-Fcontains those collected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Additional information for theseproducts is provided below.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 107

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportBeach Profile PlotsThe 2009 beach profile data were used in conjunction with data from the historical surveys tocreate profile plots and compute changes in beach width and sediment volume. The beachprofile plots developed from the survey data are provided in Appendix 2-B. The range on eachprofile plot represents the distance in meters seaward of the survey origin measured along thetransect alignment. The elevation is given in meters relative to NAVD88.Two sets of beach profile plots were generated for each transect. The first set of plots shows allof the beach profile data available for each transect, while the second set of plots shows onlythose profiles obtained during the four-year period encompassing the construction and postrestorationperiod of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project (October 2005 to October2009). The plots focusing on the recent four-year period also show the envelope of all availableprofile data that preceded the opening of the Bolsa Chica entrance channel (May 1963 to March2006). These plots also include two panels for each transect - one isolating the nearshore regionof the profile and another displaying the entire profile length.Mean Sea Level Beach WidthsMean Sea Level (MSL) beach widths are provided in Appendix 2-C. The beach width wascomputed as the horizontal distance, in meters, between the landward edge of the beach sand andthe point at which the beach profile intersected the plane of MSL Datum. In the Bolsa Chicaarea, MSL lies 0.79 m above NAVD88. Notwithstanding the use of NAVD88 as the elevationreference for the profile data, MSL was adopted as the shoreline reference in the belief that itprovides a more accurate indicator of changes in beach configuration.Sediment VolumesSediment volume changes are provided in Appendix 2-D. The volume changes were computedalong each transect for the entire width of the shorezone, and for that portion of the profilelocated above MSL (subaerial volume).The offshore boundary of the control volume for the beach above MSL was placed at theintersection of the profile and a horizontal line corresponding to the elevation of MSL. Theoffshore boundary for the shorezone was placed at the “statistical range of closure”. Thisparameter represents the distance seaward of the transect origin beyond which profile variationsare smaller than the accuracy of the survey technique. As implied by its definition, the statisticalrange of closure was adopted as the offshore boundary to separate the signal of true profilechange from the noise of survey inaccuracy. The sea bottom elevation at the range of closurecorresponds to the “depth of closure” or the depth at which sediment transport is notsubstantially affected by littoral processes.The statistical range of closure was determined for the five historical transects as part of theCCSTWS-OC. However, these boundaries were no longer appropriate due to the profile changesthat resulted at several locations from the placement of the ebb bar offshore of the Bolsa Chicaentrance. As a result, the statistical range of closure was re-computed for each historicaltransect and for the two new transects based on all available survey data collected between May1963 and October 2007. The procedure used to calculate the statistical range of closure for eachtransect was identical to that employed for the CCSTWS-OC (USACE, 2002). The results areshown in Table 2-5.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 108

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportStatistical closure was assumed to occur at the point at which the standard deviation of allmeasured elevations ceased to decrease in value. The procedure used to compute the point ofstatistical closure at each profile is summarized below:• Sea bottom elevations were interpolated at 15.2-m range intervals along all selectedprofiles.• The sample standard deviation of the interpolated elevations for all available surveyprofiles (σ) was calculated at each 15.2-m interval.• Statistical closure was assumed to occur at the point at which σ ceased to decrease.• The maximum depth of all available survey profiles at the point of statistical closure wasrecorded as the depth of statistical closure.• The distance from the transect origin to the point of statistical closure was recorded as the“range of statistical closure”. This range was adopted as the offshore boundary for thecomputation of shorezone volumes.Table 2-5. Statistical range and depth of closure at Bolsa Chica area transects.Transect Designation Range of Closure(m)Depth of Closure(m, NAVD88)249+30 473 -6.97311+22 900 -9.29318+30 793 -8.80333+30 717 -8.67350+71 519 -7.70378+29 381 -6.73423+89 549 -8.72The onshore boundary of the control volume for both the shorezone and subaerial volumes wasplaced at the landward edge of the beach sand.Beach Width MeasurementsThe results of the beach width measurements obtained by Moffatt and Nichol at the seven BolsaChica area transects are presented graphically in Appendix 2-E. The plots include the MSLbeach width and the horizontal distance from the back beach to the berm.The Corps beach widths, which consist of measurements from a consistent back beach positionto the break-in-slope at the beach berm, are presented graphically in Appendix 2-F.DiscussionThe shoreline change assessment is based on the 45-year period between 1963 and 2008.Particular emphasis is placed on the three-year period encompassing the end of the constructionof the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project and the first three years post-restoration(October 2005 to October 2009). This four-year period will be referred to as the “Bolsa ChicaMerkel & Associates, Inc. 109

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMonitoring Period”. The project components that influence coastal changes include placingapproximately 929,326 m 3 (1,214,579 y 3 ) of sand in an ebb bar located offshore of the entrancechannel during Winter 2005/2006, providing approximately 102,500 m 3 (133,962 y 3 ) of beachnourishment (50:50; north and south) to the shoreline adjacent to the channel in Summer 2006and establishing tidal exchange at the entrance channel in August 2006. Most recently, betweenJanuary and April 2009, material derived from the initial maintenance dredging episode withinthe FTB provided 180,000 m 3 of sediment to the beaches south of the entrance channel. (Note:The Surfside-Sunset Stage 12 nourishment conducted in Fall 2009 was placed north of the studyarea, and does not appear to influence the shoreline in the Bolsa Chica area at the time of theOctober 2009 survey).As indicated previously, the beaches along the Bolsa Chica study area have regularly benefitedfrom the downdrift dispersal of the Surfside-Sunset nourishment material. A comprehensiveaccount of the coastal changes in the area during the 34-year period between 1963 and 1997 canbe found in the CCSTWS-OC (USACE, 2002).Profile ChangesLong-Term Profile Changes (1963 to 2009): The above-water portion of the beach profilesobtained in 2009 are each near or seaward of the upper bound of the historical profileenvelope at six of the seven Bolsa Chica area transects. The exception was Transect 378+29,located at Huntington Cliffs. These findings are consistent with the long-term trend of beachwidth and sediment volume gains identified in the CCSTWS-OC for the Bolsa Chica studyarea. The two locations with above-water profile gains in excess of the historical envelopewere located immediately adjacent the entrance channel (Transects 318+30 and 333+30).The 2009 profiles exceeded the envelope by the greatest margin at Transect 318+30 (north ofthe entrance channel).Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period Profile Changes (2005 to 2009): During the four-year BolsaChica Monitoring Period, above-water profile accretion occurred at the three transectslocated north of the entrance channel (Transects 249+30, 311+22, and 318+30). Similar toprevious years, the greatest above-water volume gains occurred at Transect 311+22 and318+30, located immediately north of the entrance channel. These gains may be explainedby a combination of the beach nourishment placed in Summer 2006, onshore migration of thematerial placed in the ebb bar, and upcoast sediment trapping at the entrance jetties.Immediately south of the Entrance Channel (Transect 333+30), the sediment placed at thislocation in late-2008 reversed the trend of above-water profile losses that had prevailedfollowing completion of the restoration project. Further downcoast, the above-water beach atTransects 350+71 and 378+29 was characterized by relative stability. Modest gains occurredat the southernmost transect (423+89).Offshore Ebb Bar: Approximately 1.5 million m 3 of sand was placed in an ebb bar locatedoffshore of the Bolsa Chica entrance channel between November 2005 and May 2006. Thisbar is evident in the profiles at Transects 311+22, 318+30 and 333+30. Comparison of thesuccessive October profiles obtained between 2007 and 2009 indicates the onshore migrationof the ebb bar during the two-year period between the surveys. The most significant changesMerkel & Associates, Inc. 110

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportwere isolated to depths above 8 m. The ebb bar was evident at Transect 318+30 at the timeof the October 2009 survey, but had been largely dispersed at Transects 311+22 and 333+30.Beach Width Changes2009 Beach Widths: Figure 2-14 shows the beach widths in the Bolsa Chica study area at thetime of the May 2009 and October 2009 surveys. Each figure also includes the range ofhistoric Fall and Spring beach widths for all available data between 1963 and 2005. At thetime of the May 2009 survey, beach widths ranged from 25 m at Transect 378+29 to 103 mat Transect 423+89. The greatest beach width at the time of the October 2009 survey was112 m (Transect 423+89), while the narrowest beach width was 31 m (Transect 378+29).The beach width at Transects 311+22, 318+30 and 333+30 (immediately north and south ofthe entrance channel, respectively) either exceeded or approximated (within 3 m) thehistorical beach width envelope at the time of both the May and October 2009 surveys. Thebeach width at Transect 423+89 also exceeded the envelope in May 2009.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 111

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-14. May 2009 and October 2009 beach widths.Long-Term Shoreline Changes (1963 to 2009): The time series plots in Appendix 2-Cindicate a trend of long-term shoreline advance at six of the seven Bolsa Chica area transectsduring the 46-year period between 1963 and 2009. The exception was at Transects 378+29,where beach widths were relatively stable during this period with no apparent trend.Figure 2-15 shows the net long-term beach width changes in the Bolsa Chica study areabetween May 1963 and May 2009. To avoid a seasonal bias, the comparison utilizes theMay 2009 survey rather than the more recent October 2009 survey. Shoreline advancepredominated, with gains ranging from 15 m at Transect 350+71 to 76 m at Transect 318+30.Shoreline retreat occurred at only one location, a loss of 9 m at Transect 378+29.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 112

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-15. Long-term beach width changes, May 1963 to May 2009.Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period Shoreline Changes (2005 to 2009): Beach width changesbetween October 2005 and October 2009 are shown in Figure 2-16. During the four-yearperiod encompassing the construction and post-restoration period of the Bolsa ChicaLowlands Restoration Project, the shoreline advanced at the two transects locatedimmediately north of the entrance channel (311+22 and 318+30), retreated at the twosouthernmost transects in the study area (378+29 and 423+89), and was essentiallyunchanged (3 m or less) at the remaining three sites (249+30, 333+30 and 350+71).Investigation of the time series plots in Appendix 2-A indicates a trend of dramatic shorelineadvance immediately north of the entrance channel (311+22 and 318+30) during the BolsaChica Monitoring Period and modest shoreline retreat or stability at the remainder of thesites. During the four-year period, beach width changes ranged from a gain of 34 m atTransect 318+30 to a loss of 8 m at Transect 423+89.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 113

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-16. Bolsa Chica monitoring period shoreline changes, October 2005 to October 2009.Sediment Volume ChangesLong-Term Subaerial Volume Changes (1963 to 2009): The long-term subaerial volumetrends (Appendix 2-D) were similar to the long-term shoreline changes. Volume gainsoccurred at six of the seven Bolsa Chica area transects during the 46-year period between1963 and 2009. In keeping with the shoreline change trends, the exception was Transect378+29, where subaerial volumes were relatively stable during this period with no apparenttrend. Figure 2-17, which shows the net long-term subaerial volume changes between May1963 and May 2009, bears a striking resemblance to Figure 2-15 (showing shoreline changesfor the same period).Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period Subaerial Volume Changes (2005 to 2009): Subaerialvolume changes during the four-year Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period are shown in Figure 2-18. Volume gains prevailed at each of the three transects located north of the entrancechannel (249+30, 311+22, and 318+30). In a departure from past years, volume gains alsooccurred at Transect 333+30 (immediately south of the entrance channel). As discussedpreviously, these gains may be explained by the sediment placed at this location in late-2008.In general, the subaerial volume changes are similar to the beach width changes.Discrepancies occurred at Transects 249+30, 333+30, and 423+89 where the shorelineretreated but the subaerial volume increased. This apparent inconsistency can be explainedby accretion of the beach between the waterline and the berm at the time of the October 2009survey. This is particularly evident at Transect 333+30 where the sediment was placed.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 114

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-17. Long-term subaerial volume changes, May 1963 to October 2009.Figure 2-18. Bolsa Chica monitoring period subaerial volume changes, Oct. 2005 to Oct. 2009.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 115

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportLong-Term Shorezone Volume Changes (1963 to 2009): As described previously, theshorezone encompasses the entire littoral zone from the back beach to the depth of closure.Figure 2-19 shows the net long-term shorezone volume changes between May 1963 andOctober 2009 at each of the Bolsa Chica area transects. The comparison utilizes the May1963 and October 2009 surveys because the shorezone volume is not subject to seasonal bias.Shorezone volume gains prevailed at each of the seven Bolsa Chica-area transects. The gainsranged from 156 m 3 /m at Transect 378+29 to 1109 m 3 /m at Transect 318+30.Figure 2-19. Long-term shorezone volume changes, May 1963 to October 2009.The shorezone volume gains reflect not only the influence of the Surfside/Sunsetnourishment activities, but also the ebb bar that was placed offshore of the entrance channelas part of the restoration project. The ebb bar, which was created by placing approximately1.5 million m 3 of sand offshore, is evident in the 2007 and 2008 profiles at Transects 311+22,318+30 and 333+30. The time series plots in Appendix 2-D show substantial volume gainsat each of these transects between 2002 and 2007. As discussed previously, the ebb bar wasevident at Transect 318+30 at the time of the October 2009 survey, but had been largelydispersed at Transects 311+22 and 333+30.Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period Shorezone Volume Changes (2005 to 2009): It is notpossible to quantify the shorezone volume changes for the Bolsa Chica Monitoring Periodbecause the October 2005 profile does not extend below the waterline. However,investigation of the time series plots in Appendix 2-b indicate that a trend of shorezonevolume loss prevailed at four transects located in the central portion of the study areaMerkel & Associates, Inc. 116

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report(318+30 to 378+29) between January 2007 and May 2008, followed by a trend of increasingvolumes through October 2009. This may be attributable to the dispersal and redistributionof the ebb bar and natural erosion between Surfside-Sunset nourishment intervals. A trend ofshorezone volume retreat predominated during the entire four-year period at Transects249+30, 311+22, and 423+89.Beach Width MeasurementsTime series plots for the beach width measurements obtained at the seven Bolsa Chica areatransects by Moffatt and Nichol and at three nearby locations by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers are presented in Appendices 2-E and 2-F, respectively.The results of the beach width measurements obtained at the seven Bolsa Chica area transects aresummarized in Table 2-6. During the three-year period between the January 2007 and December2009 observations, the MSL beach width decreased at three of the seven sites, increased at twolocations, and was essentially unchanged (3 m or less) at the remaining two sites. The shorelinegains were confined to the area immediately north of the entrance channel (311+22 and 318+30).The greatest shoreline advance was 13 m, and occurred north of the entrance channel atTransects 311+22. The greatest shoreline retreat, 16 m, occurred at the north end of the studyarea at Transect 249+30. Shoreline change rates during the three-year period ranged from -4.6m/yr at Transect 249+30 to 5.2 m/yr at Transect 318+30.Table 2-6. Berm width measurement program summary statistics, Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2009.Distance to Berm (m)MSL Beach Width (m)Transect Range(m)Ave(m)Change(m)Trend(m/yr)Range(m))Ave(m)Change(m)Trend(m/yr)249+30 57-86 65 -16 -5.9 73-104 84 -16 -4.6311+22 50-67 58 5 0.6 65-87 76 13 1.7318+30 56-77 67 11 4.5 69-99 84 11 5.2333+30 23-59 37 2 3.2 38-96 59 -4 3.2350+71 17-37 27 -3 -2.4 34-55 47 3 -1.9378+29 0-17 6 1 1.8 6-33 19 2 0.9423+89 78-101 85 -7 -0.5 92-116 101 -14 -1.0The Bolsa Chica Monitoring Plan (USFWS, 2001b) defined beach nourishment triggers based onthe monthly beach width observations at the Corps measurement sites within the study area. Theminimum permitable beach width based on two consecutive monthly measurements wasstipulated to be 15.2 m (50 ft). A second condition indicated that the 12-month rolling averagebeach width could not deviate from the long-term mean beach width (based on the periodJanuary 1980 to January 2000) by more than two standard deviations. Table 2-7 shows thebaseline berm position statistics for the three Corps measurement sites within the study that wereprovided in the monitoring plan.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 117

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTable 2-7. Baseline berm position statistics for Corps measurement transects (Jan. 1980 to Jan. 2000).StationBerm Position (m)Range Mean Std. Deviation247+88 48 - 105 64.0 7.6307+88 12 - 59 33.2 7.3424+44 18 - 81 52.4 10.4Figures 2-20, 2-21, and 2-22 show the long-term rolling average berm width from October 2006(pre-project) to December 2009 at each of the three Corps measurement sites within the studyarea. The time series plots also show the minimum stipulated berm width (15.2 m), the longtermmean berm width, and a shaded area encompassing two standard deviations above andbelow the long-term mean berm width.The measured berm width remained above the minimum stipulated berm width (15.2 m)throughout the period at each of the sites. At 307+88 and 424+44, the 12-month rolling averageberm width exceeded two standard deviations above the long-term mean for the majority of theperiod. At no location, however, was the 12-month rolling average berm width less than twostandard deviations below the long-term mean.12012-Month Rolling Average Berm Width (m)10080604020long-term mean = 64.0 mminumum permitable beach width+-2 Standard Deviationsfrom Long-Term Mean02005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010YearFigure 2-20. Twelve-month average berm width at Corps station 247+88.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 118

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report12012-Month Rolling Average Berm Width (m)10080604020long-term mean = 33.2 mminumum permitable beach width+-2 Standard Deviationsfrom Long-Term Mean02005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010YearFigure 2-21. Twelve-month average berm width at Corps station 307+88.12012-Month Rolling Average Berm Width (m)10080604020long-term mean = 52.4 mminumum permitable beach width+-2 Standard Deviationsfrom Long-Term Mean02005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010YearFigure 2-22. Twelve-month average berm width at Corps station 424+44.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 119

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportInfluence of Entrance ChannelShoreline Changes Adjacent to Entrance Channel: Between October 2005 and October 2009,the beaches upcoast (north) of the new entrance channel accreted, while those downcoast (south)of the channel tended to erode (Figure 2-16). Figure 2-23 compares the shoreline changesimmediately north of the channel (Transect 318+30) with the changes for the remaining upcoastmonitoring sites (Transects 249+30 and 311+12). A trend of shoreline advance is evident ateach of the three upcoast transects between October 2005 and October 2009. The rate ofshoreline advance is greatest immediately adjacent to the entrance channel (Transect 318+30).This may be explained by the nourishment placed at the site in 2006 and the tendency forsediment to accumulate updrift of the entrance channel jetties.Figure 2-23. Shoreline changes at upcoast transects, October 2005 to October 2009.A time series of the shoreline changes at the four transects located downcoast (south) of theentrance channel is shown in Figure 2-24. The shoreline changes at Transect 333+30(immediately downdrift of the channel) were nearly identical to those at Transects 350+71and 423+89, and indicate a trend of shoreline retreat between October 2005 and October2007. The shoreline changes at Transect 378+29 differed only modestly. Between October2007 and October 2009 modest shoreline advance occurred at the two transects nearest theentrance channel (333+30 and 350+71). In contrast, the shoreline retreated at the remainingsites. The shoreline advance adjacent to the entrance channel may be explained in part by thesediment placed in this vicinity in late-2008.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 120

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 2-24. Shoreline changes at downdrift transects, October 2005 to October 2009.Volume Changes Adjacent to Entrance Channel: The subaerial volume changes upcoast ofthe entrance channel (Figure 2-25) responded similarly to the shoreline changes. Thesubaerial volume increased during the four-year period at each of the sites, with the mostpronounced gains occurring at Transect 318+30.400350249+30311+22318+30Subaerial Volume (m 3 /m)3002502001501005002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010YearFigure 2-25. Subaerial volume changes at upcoast transects, October 2005 to October 2009.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 121

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAs shown in Figure 2-26 (downcoast volume changes), subaerial volume losses prevailedbetween January 2007 and October 2008 at the transects nearest the entrance channel (333+30).The sediment placed at this site in late-2008 was sufficient to reverse this trend, with volumegains predominating through May 2009. Similar subaerial volume changes occurred furtherdowncoast at Transect 350+71, however, the gains following the nourishment activities wereminimal. Particular vigilance is warranted at these sites during future monitoring activities todetermine if the erosional trend noted following the opening of the entrance channel is reestablishedafter the recent nourishment material disperses. The remaining sites were relativelystable during this period. (Note: It is not possible to assess the shorezone volume changes for theBolsa Chica Monitoring period because the October 2005 profile does not extend below thewaterline).400350Subaerial Volume (m 3 /m)300250200150100333+30350+71378+29423+895002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Figure 2-26. Subaerial volume changes at downcoast transects, October 2005 to October 2009.YearSediment Trapping in the Full Tidal Basin: As indicated in Section 2.1, approximately198,000 m 3 of sediment was deposited in the lagoon during the initial 17-month periodfollowing the establishment of tidal exchange (August 2006 to January 2008; equivalent toapproximately 140,000 m 3 /y). Sedimentation was reduced substantially during the secondyear (11-month period between January 2008 and December 2008) to approximately 36,000m 3 or 39,000 m 3 /y. The initial maintenance dredging episode (conducted in early 2009)removed approximately 180,000 m 3 of material from within the FTB. During the 10-monthperiod following the dredging operations, approximately 43,000 m 3 of sediment wasdeposited within the FTB (April 2009 to January 2010; equivalent to approximately 52,000m 3 /y). While a small fraction of this material may have resulted from redistribution of basinsediments or aeolian processes, nearly all of the sediment has entered the basin from theocean.It is possible that the high shoaling rate during the initial 17-month period (140,000 m 3 /y)was a transient effect attributable to inlet stabilization, and increased propensity forMerkel & Associates, Inc. 122

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportsedimentation due to the proximately of the pre-filled ebb bar and widened beaches adjacentto the inlet. The reduced shoaling rate during the second year is likely attributable to areduced tidal prism due to high initial shoaling rates and the stabilization of theaforementioned local sediment sources (nourished beaches and ebb bar). The shoaling ratefollowing the first maintenance dredging operation (52,000 m 3 /y) was significantly lowerthan the rate that prevailed following the initial opening of the FTB. It is cautioned,however, that this annualized rate does not include a full winter season as part of the 10-month period and may be artificially low. Particular vigilance is warranted in monitoring theflood shoal accumulation rates following the recent dredging activities to understand if thehigh sedimentation rates documented during the first year were transitory or will be repeated.The shoaling rate measured during the initial 17-month period was on the same order ofmagnitude as the alongshore sediment transport rates developed as part of the CCSTWS-OCsediment budgets (estimated to range from 108,000 m 3 /y to 125,000 m 3 /y). In the event thattrapping rates detected during the initial post-opening are not transitory, these rates are of asignificant magnitude to be of major concern to longshore transport in the littoral cell. If leftunchecked and unmanaged, the primary implication of a substantial reduction of thelongshore sediment supply is shoreline erosion downdrift of the entrance channel. The BolsaChica project, however, incorporates two sand management measures to actively address thepotential for downdrift erosion by eliminating or substantially reducing the net long-term lossof sand downcoast. To compensate for anticipated short-term sediment losses from thelittoral budget due to the natural formation of an ebb bar, initial lagoon shoaling, and filletformation along the jetties, the ebb bar located offshore of the entrance channel was prefilled,and supplemental sand was placed as beach nourishment adjacent to the channel at thetime of construction. These pre-fills were intended to minimize littoral sand loss to ebb barformation and provide supplemental sand for early inlet stabilization. In addition, the longtermproject sediment management plan provides for periodic down-coast beach nourishmentusing sediment derived from the FTB during maintenance dredging operations (the first suchoperation was conducted in early 2009). This bypassing operation essentially restores thesediment lost from the littoral budget to the downdrift beaches over the long-term. Takentogether, these measures are anticipated to maintain the historical supply of sediment to thebeaches located south of the entrance channel.III. MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROGRAMThe maintenance dredging program was planned as a sand management action to maintain “nonet loss” of sand to the downcoast beaches as required in the EIR/EIS and project permits, aswell as to ensure the vitality of the restored tidal system.3.1 DREDGING TRIGGERSThe following parameters were identified early in the monitoring program to evaluate thefunctioning of the system and determine when dredging should be performed. Some of theseparameters have previously established dredging triggers associated with them, as indicated,while others have thresholds that were established by the monitoring team, based on the need tosustain the biological and hydrological functioning of the system.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 123

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTidal MutingMuting of the average low tide elevations (Mean Low Water) on the order of 0.5 feet wouldindicate that the flood shoal maintenance dredging was warranted (Biological Monitoringand Follow-up Plan [USFWS 2001]).Muted Tidal Basin FunctionThe flood shoal should be dredged if the tidal drainage in the MTBs is impeded and the MTBfunction is degraded as a result of inefficient drainage. Tidal monitoring in the FTB will helpdetermine the dredging trigger related to tidal drainage in the MTBs (Monitoring Teamdetermination).Beach WidthFlood shoal dredging should occur if any beach is found to be narrower than 50 feet, basedon two consecutive monthly beach width measurements, and/or if any 12-month rollingaverage of beach widths which deviate more than 2 standard deviations from the mean beachwidth, using the 20-year historic record to establish these means and standard deviations(Beach Monitoring Plan [USFWS, 2001]).Loss of Subtidal HabitatThe flood shoal should be dredged if a 10% decrease in habitat acreage occurs (Basis ofDesign Report [M&N, 2003]).Closure RiskThe flood shoal should be dredged if it is determined that the inlet is at risk of closure in asingle storm scenario due to the localized shoaling pattern (Monitoring Teamdetermination).Water qualityTidal circulation in the FTB will be slightly less efficient under the muted tidal condition.However, the FTB should still have an excellent circulation condition with a residence timeof a few days. The water quality will degrade if the inlet is closed. At present, the large sizeof the FTB and the significant wave fetch is believed to be adequate to sustain good waterquality even in highly muted conditions. However, substantial deviations in water qualityparameters that suggest isolation from strong oceanic influences should trigger dredging ofthe flood shoal (Monitoring Team determination).An extensive analysis of each of the above triggers was completed in the 2008 MonitoringReport (M&A 2009b), which concluded that maintenance dredging was warranted due to the lowtide muting of the FTB and the resultant lack of function of the MTBs. Although the originaltidal muting trigger within the Biological Monitoring and Follow-up Plan has been determined tobe inappropriate for the system, it is evident that tidal muting will likely always be the elementthat indicates the need for dredging, to address an intrinsic system need related to thefunctionality of the MTBs.The tidal monitoring chapter above proposed an operational goal of spring low tide muting ofless than 0.45 meters in order to have occasional tidal movement of water within each of theMTBs. Following completion of the January to April 2009 dredging detailed below, tidal mutingMerkel & Associates, Inc. 124

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Reportwas temporarily improved, however by November 2009 the 0.45-meter threshold was beingrepeatedly exceeded on each spring tide series. Final triggers will need to be set once all of theMTBs are open to the FTB, however this rapid return to a highly muted condition promptedcontemplation of a second maintenance dredging event in 2011.3.2 MAINTENANCE DREDGINGBased on the considerable sand accretion and tidal muting discussed in Chapter 2.0, plans werebegun in 2008 to initiate the first maintenance dredging event in 2009. Moffatt & Nicholprepared the dredge plans (Figure 3-1). Other pre-dredge preparations included implementationof a Sampling and Analysis Plan, completion of a pre-dredge survey for the invasive seaweedCaulerpa taxifolia, and completion of the contractor bidding process. The dredge work wascontracted to Brent Engineering, who mobilized in December 2008 and began dredging in earlyJanuary 2009.From January 8 to April 14, 2009 (96 days of dredging), approximately 180,045 m 3 of sand waspumped from the maintenance basin to the beach south of the inlet (Figure 3-2). The sand wasdischarged into an open channel, where it flowed out to the surf and at times was also distributedwith a bulldozer (Figure 3-3). Approximately 110 m of beach was created, extending from thejetty southward. Because the California grunion spawning season started before the beachreplenishment was completed, a biological monitoring was present during the three predictedgrunion runs and documented the usage of the beach by spawning grunion. Based on thefindings, the sand discharge and grooming activities were adjusted to avoid placing new sand inlocations were grunion had been seen spawning.The total cost of the first maintenance dredging events was approximately $3.2 million, whichwas funded by the restoration project maintenance account and Montrose settlement funds.In light of the rapid return of considerable tidal muting within seven months of the completion ofdredging, the following recommendation is made. Consideration should be given to dredging tothe permitted depth of the final engineering design depths to extend the post-dredge period ofimproved tidal conditions. Dredging at the time of initial construction was not completed to fulldesign depths within the maintenance basin. If deepening of the maintenance basin werecompleted during the next dredge event, this would garner additional time before the next dredgeevents and would improve dredging efficiency by capturing a greater volume of sediment in amore localized and recoverable area nearer the inlet.Second, the pre-dredging contracting process can consume a considerable period of time andthus work should be completed to streamline and pre-prepare to the maximum extent practicalprior to maintenance triggers being tripped. This would allow for a reduced period over whichthe system functions in an impaired condition prior to completing maintenance dredging. Toaccomplish this would require: preparation of the majority of the plans and specifications,completion of permitting based on a maintenance basin plan and dredge volume range,preparation of bid and contract documents, and obtaining maximum flexibility for the dredgingwindow of work.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 125

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFigure 3-1. 2009 maintenance dredging project dredge plan.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 126

0 100 200MetersμInlet dredging and beach disposal under wayBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 3-2Merkel & Associates, Inc.

0 25 50 100 150MetersμBolsa Chica State Beachafter replenishment (July 2009)Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectFigure 3-3Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportREFERENCESAgri Chemical & Supply, Inc. 2006. 2005 Annual Report, Exotic Plant Eradication, NavalWeapons Station Seal Beach prepared for Southwest Division Naval Facilities Command andEnvironmental Programs & Sciences Office, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. 24pp.Allen, B. J. and S.L. Williams. 2003. Native eelgrass Zostera marina controls growth andreproduction of an invasive mussel through food limitation. Marine Ecology Progress Series254: 57-67.California Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Special Animals. California Natural DiversityData Base. January 2011. Retrieved from:ttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdfCailliet, G.M. 2000. Biological Characteristics of Nearshore Fishes of California: A Review ofExisting Knowledge and Proposed Additional Studies for the Pacific OceanInterjurisdictional Fisheries Management Plan Coordination and Development Project.Prepared for Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.Coastal Frontiers. 2009. Bolsa Chica October 2008 Beach Profile Survey, letter report preparedfor Merkel and Associates, 10 pp.Coastal Frontiers. 2008a. Bolsa Chica October 2007 Beach Profile Survey, letter report preparedfor Merkel and Associates, 9 pp.Coastal Frontiers. 2008b. Bolsa Chica May 2008 Beach Profile Survey, letter report prepared forMerkel and Associates, 10 pp.Coastal Frontiers. 2007a. Bolsa Chica January 2007 Beach Profile Survey, letter report preparedfor Merkel and Associates, 8 pp.Coastal Frontiers. 2007b. Bolsa Chica May 2007 Beach Profile Survey, letter report prepared forMerkel and Associates, 8 pp.Ehrlich, K.F., G.E. McGowen, and G. Muszynski. 1978. Temperature selection by youngtopsmelt: laboratory and field investigations. In: Energy and environmental stress in aquaticsystems: selected papers from a symposium held in Augusta, Georgia, November 2-4, 1977.National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. p 522-533.Emmett, R.L., S.A. Hinton, S.L. Stone, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance offishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Volume II: Species life history summaries.ELMR Report No 8. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. Rockville,MD, 329 pp.Eschmeyer, W.N., E.S. Herald, and H. Hammann. 1983. A field guide to Pacific coast fishesNorth America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 336 pp.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 129

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportFancher, J., P. Knapp, and L. Hays. 2006. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2006. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.February 2007 28pp.Fancher, J., P. Knapp, and L. Hays. 2005. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2005. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.December 2005 28pp.Fancher, J, P. Knapp, and L. Hays. 2005. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2004. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office. January2005 25pp.Fancher, J., P. Knapp, and L. Hays. 2004. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2003. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office. January2004 22pp.Fancher, J., L. Hays, and P. Knapp. 2002. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2002. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.December 2002. 23pp.Fancher, J., L. Hays, and P. Knapp. 2002. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2001. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.February 2002. 24pp.Fancher, J., L. Hays, and P. Knapp. 2001. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 1999 and 2000. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, CarlsbadOffice. February 2001. 34pp.Fancher, J., R. Zembal, L. Hays, and P. Knapp. 1998. Western snowy plover nesting at BolsaChica, Orange County, California. 1998. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, CarlsbadOffice. October 1998. 27pp.Fancher, J. 1998. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California.1997. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office. April 1998. 22pp.Holland RF. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of terrestrial natural communities of California.State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,California. 156 pp.Howald, A. 2000. Lepidium latifolium. pp. 222-227 in Bossard, C. C., J.M. Randall, and M. C.Hoshovsky. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press.Berkeley, CAJensen, G. C. Pacific Coast Crabs and Shrimps. Sea Challengers, Monterey, CA. 1995. 88 pp.Knapp, P. and B. Peterson. 2008. Final Report. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica,Orange County, California 2008. December 2008. 20pp.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 130

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportLevin, L.A. and T.S. Talley. 2002. Natural and manipulated sources of Heterogeneitycontrolling early faunal development of a salt marsh. Ecological Applications12(6):1785-1802.Marschalek, D.A. 2008. California least tern breeding survey, 2008 season. CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Unit Report, 2008-01. Sacramento, CA. 21 pp.Massey, B. W. 1979. The Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,DACW0978-C-0008, Los Angeles.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2009a. Batiquitos Lagoon Long-term Biological MonitoringProgram Final Report. M&A Doc. No. 96-057-01-F. Prepared for City of Carlsbad PlanningDepartment and Port of Los Angeles, Environmental Management Division. San Diego, CA.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2009b. Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project MonitoringProgram -Annual Report 2008. Monitoring Year 2. Prepared for California State LandsCommission. 103pp.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2008a. Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project MonitoringProgram -Annual Report 2007. Monitoring Year 1. Prepared for California State LandsCommission. 103pp.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2008b. Bolsa Chica Restoration Project 2008 Maintenance DredgingSediment Characterization and Compatibility Testing Results. Prepared for the CaliforniaState Lands Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 2008. 11pp.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2003. Habitat Classification for: Inventory and Evaluation ofHabitats and Other Environmental Resources in the San Diego Region’s Nearshore CoastalZone. California Coastal Conservancy and San Diego Association of Governments.Revised: November 26, 2003.Mesa, Chuck. 2009. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, LA District. personal communication by e-mail on April 29, 2008.Mesa, Chuck. 2008a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, LA District. personal communication bye-mail on February 7, 2008.Mesa, Chuck. 2008b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, LA District. personal communication bye-mail on February 5, 2008.Miller, D.J. and R.N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 157. 249 pp.Moffatt & Nichol. 2003. Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project Basis of Design FinalReport. August, 2003.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 131

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMoffatt & Nichol. 1999. Final Report, Preliminary Engineering Inlet Studies for Bolsa ChicaWetlands Restoration. December 1999.National Ocean Service (NOS). 2008. Center for Operation Oceanographic Products andServices. http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. Coastal Services Center.http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/TCM/.Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, and J.D.Williams. 2004. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States,Canada, and Mexico. Sixth Edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29,Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.Powell, A. N. and C. L. Collier. 1998. Reproductive Success of Belding’s Savannah Sparrows ina Highly Fragmented Landscape. The Auk 115(2): 508-513.Randall, J. 2000. Schinus terebinthifolius. pp. 282-286 in Bossard, C. C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press.Berkeley, CA.Ricketts E.F., J. Calvin, J.W. Hedgpeth. 1968. Between Pacific Tides. Stanford UniversityPress, California, 614 pp.Thrush, S.F., R.B. Whitlatch, R.D. Pridemore, J.E. Hewitt, V.J. Cummings, and M.R. Wilkinson.1996. Scale-dependent recolonization: The role of sediment stability in a dynamicsandflat habitat. Ecology 77(8):2472-2487.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002. Coast of California Storm and Tidal WaveStudy - South Coast Region - Orange County, USACE, Los Angeles District, 545 pp +appendices.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Bolsa Chica Lowland Restoration Project BiologicalMonitoring and Follow-up Plan.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Bolsa Chica Lowland Restoration Project BeachMonitoring Plan.Zembal, R., J. Konecny, and S. M. Hoffman. 2006. A survey of the Belding’s Savannah sparrow(Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) in California, 2006. Calif. Dep. Fish and Game,Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Species Conservation and Recovery Program Report2006-03, Sacramento, CA. 15pp.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 132

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-A. 2009 FIELD SURVEY DATESMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual Report2009 field survey dates.VEGETATION MONITORINGYear 3 Monitoring July 13, 2009 Aerial imagery collectedYear 3 Monitoring September 2009Vegetation map groundtruthingYear 3 Monitoring June 18, 2009 Eelgrass sonar surveyYear 3 Monitoring August 25, 2009 Cordgrass monitoringFISHERIES MONITORINGJanuary ’09 Monitoring Quarter January 7, 8, & 12, 2009 Fisheries samplingApril ’09 Monitoring Quarter April 20, 24, & 29, 2009 Fisheries samplingJuly ’09 Monitoring QuarterJuly 21, 23, Aug 12,2009Fisheries samplingAVIAN MONITORING2009 Sensitive Species NestingSeasonMarch to Sept, 2009 SNPL and LETE monitoring2009 Nesting Season February 25 & 26, 2009 1 st Belding’s Sav. spar. survey2009 Nesting SeasonMarch 23, 24, & 25,20092 nd Belding’s Sav. spar. surveyFebruary ’09 General Bird Survey February 12 & 13, 2009Full survey of site for allspeciesApril ’09 General Bird Survey April 13 & 14, 2009Full survey of site for allspeciesJune ’09 General Bird Survey June 9 & 10, 2009Full survey of site for allspeciesAugust ’09 General Bird Survey August 20 & 21, 2009Full survey of site for allspeciesINLET BATHYMETRIC MONITORINGPost-dredge Survey April 14, 2009Bathymetric survey of inlet,conducted by dredgecontractorAdditional Post-dredge Survey May 14, 2009Bathymetric survey of inlet,conducted by M&ASummer 2009 Survey July 28, 2009 Bathymetric survey of inletTIDAL MONITORING2009 Monitoring Jan 1 to Dec 31, 2009 Continuous logging in FTBBEACH MONITORINGJanuary 2009 Beach Width Survey January 22, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredFebruary 2009 Beach Width Survey February 20, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredMarch 2009 Beach Width Survey March 25, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredApril 2009 Beach Width Survey April 20, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredMay 2009 Beach Width Survey May 20, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportJune 2009 Beach Width Survey June 19, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredJuly 2009 Beach Width Survey July 20, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredAugust 2009 Beach Width Survey August 20, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredSeptember 2009 Beach WidthSurveySeptember 21, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredOctober 2009 Beach Width Survey October 20, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredNovember 2009 Beach WidthSurveyNovember 20, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredDecember 2009 Beach WidthSurveyDecember 21, 2009 7 Sites MeasuredSpring 2009 Beach Profile Survey May 18, 2009 Profile Survey - 7 TransectsFall 2009 Beach Profile Survey October 26, 2009 Profile Survey - 7 TransectsMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-B. SAMPLING LOCATION COORDINATESMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportSampling Location CoordinatesCalifornia State Plane, Zone 6, NAD 83, MetersField Element Station and Replicate ID X YVegetation RI 1 stop 1,833,325.64 671,485.78Transects RI 1 start 1,833,366.34 671,514.44RI 2 stop 1,833,431.95 671,673.61RI 2 start 1,833,464.57 671,635.45RI 3 stop 1,833,526.47 671,445.14RI 3 start 1,833,498.34 671,403.74FTBW 1 stop 1,834,331.54 671,268.08FTBW 1 start 1,834,365.01 671,305.46FTBW 2 stop 1,834,143.34 671,411.92FTBW 2 start 1,834,178.67 671,448.99FTBW 3 stop 1,833,979.61 671,626.83FTBW 3 start 1,834,015.89 671,661.42FTB north stop 1,833,816.71 671,931.03FTB north start 1,833,845.78 671,970.35EMTB 1 stop 1,834,502.81 671,355.14EMTB 1 start 1,834,552.68 671,353.17EMTB 2 start 1,834,623.34 671,566.11EMTB 2 stop 1,834,614.84 671,614.77EMTB 3 stop 1,834,881.73 671,512.94EMTB 3 start 1,834,899.29 671,465.86CMTB 1 stop 1,834,387.15 671,693.14CMTB 1 start 1,834,416.09 671,652.24CMTB 2 stop 1,834,046.59 671,740.55CMTB 2 start 1,834,046.26 671,690.73CMTB 3 stop 1,834,194.00 671,620.91CMTB 3 start 1,834,167.97 671,578.10WMTB 1 start 1,834,129.94 671,948.04WMTB 1 stop 1,834,084.83 671,926.02WMTB 2 stop 1,834,179.65 672,099.48WMTB 2 start 1,834,219.58 672,070.02WMTB 3 start 1,833,962.40 671,993.38WMTB 3 stop 1,833,912.52 671,996.52MPM1 start 1,833,285.22 671,920.30MPM1 stop 1,833,235.92 671,925.71MPM2 start 1,833,368.76 671,974.94MPM 2 stop 1,833,318.94 671,976.42MPM3 start 1,833,423.99 672,050.83MPM3 stop 1,833,440.42 672,003.96Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportPurse Seine Station 1 Rep 1 1,833,662.56 671,875.62Station 1 Rep 2 1,833,897.57 671,479.91Station 1 Rep 3 1,834,106.99 671,308.46Station 2 Rep 1 1,834,554.56 670,690.03Station 2 Rep 2 1,834,463.66 670,337.65Station 2 Rep 3 1,834,366.47 670,039.54Otter Trawl Station 1 Rep 1N 1,833,739.41 671,870.60Station 1 Rep 1S 1,833,832.46 671,638.59Station 1 Rep 2N 1,833,728.03 671,609.96Station 1 Rep 2S 1,833,843.77 671,388.44Station 1 Rep 3N 1,833,962.78 671,461.67Station 1 Rep 3S 1,834,012.69 671,215.96Station 2 Rep 1N 1,834,448.76 670,736.71Station 2 Rep 1S 1,834,420.89 670,489.02Station 2 Rep 2N 1,834,523.64 670,509.52Station 2 Rep 2S 1,834,571.90 670,263.45Station 2 Rep 3N 1,834,452.21 670,173.52Station 2 Rep 3S 1,834,463.48 669,923.39Large Beach Pocket Marsh Rep 1 1,833,710.06 672,144.96Seine Pocket Marsh Rep 2 1,833,470.21 672,021.93Pocket Marsh Rep 3 1,833,273.77 671,924.75Station 1 Rep 1 1,833,797.81 671,938.86Station 1 Rep 2 1,833,686.35 671,401.07Station 1 Rep 3 1,834,157.35 671,362.85Station 2 Rep 1 1,834,680.13 670,539.00Station 2 Rep 2 1,834,317.83 670,047.05Station 2 Rep 3 1,834,685.46 670,314.34Benthic Station 1 Rep 1 1,833,780.44 671,943.61Station 1 Rep 2 1,833,624.94 671,941.40Station 1 Rep 3 1,834,130.42 671,378.73Station 2 Rep 1 1,834,676.95 670,541.17Station 2 Rep 2 1,834,688.47 670,299.59Station 2 Rep 3 1,834,332.74 670,053.99Station 3 Rep 1 1,833,593.88 671,759.67Station 3 Rep 2 1,833,700.39 671,385.09Station 3 Rep 3 1,833,851.86 671,284.76Water Quality Station 1 1,833,687.14 671,735.95Station 2 1,834,520.64 670,639.78Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-C. CORDGRASS MONITORING PHOTOSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual Report200820082008 Cordgrass Site 1. Looking south to north.Mean shoot density: 66 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 20 cm2008 Cordgrass Site 2. Looking west to east.Mean shoot density: 16 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 50 cm2009 20092009 Cordgrass Site 1. Looking south to north.Mean shoot density: 58 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 47 cm2009 Cordgrass Site 2. Looking west to east.Mean shoot density: 90 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 50 cmMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual Report200820082008 Cordgrass Site 3. Looking west to east.Mean shoot density: 22 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 61 cm2008 Cordgrass Site 4. Looking west to east..Mean shoot density: 16 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 60 cm200920092009 Cordgrass Site 3. Looking west to east.Mean shoot density: 67 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 51 cm2009 Cordgrass Site 4. Looking west to east..Mean shoot density: 58 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 48 cmMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual Report200820082008 Cordgrass Site 5. Looking west to east.Mean shoot density: 33 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 50 cm2008 Cordgrass Site 7. Looking west to east.Mean shoot density: 9 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 43 cm200920092009 Cordgrass Site 5. Looking west to east.Mean shoot density: 54 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 45 cm2009 Cordgrass Site 7. Looking west to east.Mean shoot density: 59 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 30 cmMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual Report200820082008 Cordgrass Site 8. Looking east to west..Mean shoot density: 16 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 73 cm2008 Cordgrass Site 9. Looking east to west.Mean shoot density: 21 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 60 cm200920092009 Cordgrass Site 8. Looking east to west..Mean shoot density: 54 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 50 cm2009 Cordgrass Site 9. Looking east to west.Mean shoot density: 62 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 30 cmMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual Report200820082008 Cordgrass Site 10. Looking east to west.Mean shoot density: 34 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 70 cm2008 Cordgrass Site 14. Looking south to north. Single plant.Shoot density: 15 shoots/m 2 ; canopy height: 50 cm200920092009 Cordgrass Site 10. Looking east to west.Mean shoot density: 85 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 51 cm2009 Cordgrass Site 14. Looking east to west.Mean shoot density: 136 shoots/m 2 ; mean canopy height: 57 cmMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-D. LIST OF ALL FISH SPECIES OBSERVEDMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportList of All Fish Species Observed Since Start of Monitoring (2007-2009)speciesFull TidalBasinMuted TidalBasinsPocketMarshArrow/Shadow Goby complex X X XBarred Pipefish X XBarred Sand BassXBat RayXBay BlennyXBay Pipefish X X XBlack CroakerXBlack SurfperchXBonefishXCalifornia Butterfly RayXCalifornia CorbinaXCalifornia GrunionXCalifornia HalibutXCalifornia Killifish X X XCalifornia LizardfishXCalifornia NeedlefishXCalifornia TonguefishXCheekspot Goby X X XDeepbody AnchovyXDiamond Turbot X XGiant KelpfishXGray SmoothoundXJacksmeltXKelp BassXLeopard SharkXLongjaw Mudsucker X X XNorthern AnchovyXOpaleyeXPacific HerringXPacific SardineXQueenfishXRound StingrayXSalemaXSebastes, unidentified juvenile XShiner SurfperchXSlough AnchovyXSnubnose PipefishXSpeckled SanddabXSpotted Sand BassXStaghorn Sculpin X X XStriped Mullet X XThornbackXTopsmelt X X XWalleye SurfperchXYellowfin CroakerXYellowfin Goby X XMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-E. AVIAN GUILDSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAvian Guilds (2007, 2008, and 2009)Aerial Fish ForagersCoots and RailsDabbling Ducks/GeeseDiving Ducks/Grebes/CormorantsMerkel & Associates, Inc.Belted KingfisherBlack SkimmerBrown PelicanCalifornia Least TernCaspian TernElegant TernForster's TernGull-billed TernRoyal TernUnidentified TernWhite PelicanAmerican BitternAmerican CootSoraVirginia RailAmerican WigeonBlue-winged TealBrantCanada GooseCinnamon TealGadwallGreen-winged TealLesser ScaupMallardMute SwanNorthern PintailNorthern ShovelerSnow GooseUnidentified DuckWood DuckBuffleheadCanvasbackClark's GrebeCommon LoonCommon MerganserDouble-crested CormorantEared GrebeGreater ScaupHooded MerganserHorned GrebeLong-tailed DuckPacific LoonPelagic CormorantPied-billed GrebeRed-breasted MerganserRedhead

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportDiving Ducks/Grebes/Cormorants(cont'd)GullsHerons, Bitterns, and IbisRaptorsShorebirdsRing-necked DuckRuddy DuckSurf ScoterUnidentified DuckUnidentified ScaupWestern GrebeBonaparte's GullCalifornia GullGlaucous-winged GullHeerman's GullMew GullRing-billed GullUnidentified GullWestern GullAmerican BitternBlack-crowned Night HeronCattle EgretGreat Blue HeronGreat EgretGreen HeronReddish EgretSnowy EgretWhite-faced IbisAmerican KestrelBurrowing OwlCooper's HawkMerlinNorthern HarrierOspreyPeregrine FalconRed-tailed HawkSharp-shinned HawkShort-eared OwlTurkey VultureWhite-tailed KiteAmerican AvocetBlack-bellied PloverBlack-necked StiltDunlinGreater YellowlegsKilldeerLeast SandpiperLesser YellowlegsLong-billed CurlewMarbled GodwitRed KnotRed PhalaropeMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportShorebirds (cont'd)Upland birdsRed-necked PhalaropeRuddy TurnstoneSanderlingSemipalmated PloverShort-billed DowitcherSpotted SandpiperUnidentified DowitcherUnidentified PloverUnidentified SandpiperUnidentified YellowlegsWestern SandpiperWestern Snowy PloverWhimbrelWilletWilson's PhalaropeWilson's SnipeAllen's HummingbirdAmerican CrowAmerican GoldfinchAmerican PipitAnna's HummingbirdAsh-throated FlycatcherBarn SwallowBelding's Savannah SparrowBewick's WrenBlack PhoebeBlack-headed GrosbeakBlue-gray GnatcatcherBrewer's BlackbirdBrown-headed CowbirdBushtitCalifornia TowheeCassin's KingbirdCliff SwallowCommon RavenCommon YellowthroatCosta's HummingbirdEuropean StarlingGreat-tailed GrackleHooded OrioleHouse FinchHouse SparrowHouse WrenLesser GoldfinchLoggerhead ShrikeMarsh WrenMourning DoveMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportUpland birds (cont'd)Northern FlickerNorthern MockingbirdNorthern Rough-winged SwallowOrange-crowned WarblerPacific-slope FlycatcherRed-winged BlackbirdRock PigeonSavannah SparrowSay's PhoebeSelasphorus sp.Song SparrowTree SwallowUnidentified FlycatcherUnidentified GnatcatcherUnidentified GoldfinchUnidentified HummingbirdUnidentified SparrowUnidentified SwallowVaux's SwiftVesper SparrowViolet-green SwallowWestern KingbirdWestern MeadowlarkWhite-crowned SparrowWhite-throated SwiftWilson's WarblerWrentitYellow-rumped WarblerMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-F. AVIAN ABUNDANCE BY ZONE IN 2009Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Avian Abundance by Zone for all 2009 Surveys CombinedGrand Future Full Tidal Basin FFTB Full Tidal Basin FTB Muted Tidal Basin MTB Pocket Seasonal Ponds SPTotal 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 63 Total 68 69 70 71 72 73 Total 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 66 Total Marsh 2 9 10 11 12 13 TotalAllen's Hummingbird 23 1 4 3 1 9 1 4 5 9 9American Avocet 499 9 12 52 1 2 1 3 4 4 6 2 2 98 8 2 3 6 2 21 2 1 12 16 31 121 12 206 9 1 228American Bittern 1 1 1American Coot 1769 163 31 1 195 119 159 43 7 204 3 94 17 1036 9 8 5 12 1 8 8 51 51 49 1 27 213 251 90 631American Crow 49 2 6 1 1 5 2 17 8 2 10 19 1 2 3American Goldfinch 8 2 2 4 4 4American Kestrel 5 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1American Pipit 44 1 8 33 42 2 2American Wigeon 458 4 10 2 2 61 79 31 6 4 13 14 226 2 6 5 1 2 38 54 136 3 35 4 42Anna's Hummingbird 47 2 1 8 2 2 15 3 4 6 4 1 4 2 24 4 4 4Ash-throated Flycatcher 1 1 1Barn Swallow 370 10 3 2 1 1 1 1 14 13 5 5 58 5 21 1 7 8 156 9 26 10 35 25 105 5 15 1 22 16 4 7 4 74 7 9 3 14 2 28Belding's Savannah Sparrow 1334 37 16 28 15 20 24 7 5 1 14 6 9 44 6 36 38 47 11 8 18 39 57 18 504 24 6 8 12 15 28 93 74 77 80 52 20 52 59 41 18 473 28 26 46 40 60 24 40 236Belted Kingfisher 4 1 1 2 1 1 1Black Phoebe 57 1 3 3 5 2 14 4 1 1 34 1 1 1 1 1 7 10 8 4 4Black Skimmer 200 1 1 2 10 165 10 4 191 2 2 4 2 2Black-bellied Plover 1784 19 1 149 169 41 59 400 9 466 13 988 2 109 1 4 2 118 4 175 330 505Black-crowned Night Heron 67 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 1 18 42Black-headed Grosbeak 2 2 2Black-necked Stilt 809 11 17 1 2 9 16 1 3 3 6 3 1 27 6 70 8 42 1 104 26 5 4 6 372 10 2 2 1 6 21 12 36 24 17 23 14 91 217 5 7 6 25 117 25 14 194Blue-winged Teal 58 2 2 4 14 19 5 38 13 3 3Bonaparte's Gull 1 1 1Brant 10 1 5 4 10Brown Pelican 846 2 3 1 6 1 1 762 48 28 840Bufflehead 258 1 4 7 6 4 27 8 2 18 77 12 10 15 77 4 118 3 2 1 2 5 2 15 31 1 1 3 9 3 17Burrowing Owl 1 1 1Bushtit 58 28 10 38 1 19 19California Gull 275 1 1 1 20 4 27 36 2 20 47 105 1 6 1 8 2 133 133California Least Tern 258 1 2 1 1 1 3 9 6 3 11 202 6 2 230 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 14 2 1 2 3California Towhee 2 1 1 1 1Canada Goose 45 3 3 1 1 3 22 2 35 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 3Caspian Tern 213 14 4 2 1 1 1 2 3 19 4 51 2 4 49 80 5 3 143 4 2 6 3 1 7 1 1 10Cassin's Kingbird 2 1 1 2Cinnamon Teal 92 6 2 14 2 6 3 33 1 5 2 29 37 17 5 22Cliff Swallow 703 9 24 2 4 3 6 9 2 28 22 5 44 23 1 168 5 9 16 2 382 16 28 10 24 6 84 23 16 17 21 17 13 12 15 4 138 1 6 11 12 9 58 2 98Common Raven 10 1 1 4 2 8 1 1 1Common Yellowthroat 57 26 1 2 29 1 1 5 1 4 12 3 13 13Cooper's Hawk 7 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1Double-crested Cormorant 186 1 1 2 16 1 1 8 3 2 3 38 8 7 61 33 8 117 2 2 3 1 6 1 15 13 1 2 3Dunlin 210 59 1 9 69 39 4 58 5 106 1 22 23 9 3 3Eared Grebe 113 8 15 8 4 6 1 2 44 5 9 6 11 11 42 1 1 8 10 3 5 18Elegant Tern 1655 2 1 1 2 1 2 9 5 1 468 1150 7 2 1633 2 1 2 1 6 1 1 2 3 6European Starling 100 1 3 2 14 10 3 1 5 4 43 1 1 37 1 1 5 8 52 4Forster's Tern 122 2 1 2 1 3 1 10 15 6 14 10 7 52 1 4 11 1 3 7 5 32 20 2 6 8Gadwall 509 39 7 3 1 1 24 50 24 27 32 2 45 3 14 272 2 11 4 4 21 3 1 7 2 4 4 21 15 5 1 10 122 14 28 180Great Blue Heron 61 1 4 1 5 1 1 13 8 1 7 16 3 4 3 1 4 1 5 2 23 9Great Egret 97 1 1 5 1 4 21 2 35 3 4 3 8 1 19 3 6 1 5 2 1 5 2 4 29 13 1 1Greater Scaup 30 1 1 29Greater Yellowlegs 101 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 13 10 5 10 4 29 2 15 3 2 12 5 17 56 1 2 3Great-tailed Grackle 63 4 1 2 27 4 3 41 21 1 22Green Heron 2 1 1 2Green-winged Teal 366 4 22 36 17 10 4 24 2 1 120 13 4 17 157 72 72Gull-billed Tern 2 1 1 1 1Hooded Oriole 4 2 2 2 2Horned Grebe 37 1 5 2 1 9 8 7 9 3 27 1 1House Finch 574 1 4 9 2 4 1 5 7 13 4 80 11 14 9 9 13 186 56 43 92 14 69 25 20 21 340 3 45 45House Sparrow 1 1 1House Wren 2 2Killdeer 314 5 3 3 3 12 13 3 5 2 31 42 14 3 8 1 1 1 150 9 4 12 25 2 6 7 13 2 16 20 8 1 75 16 3 3 5 11 23 3 48Least Sandpiper 120 4 1 2 1 1 2 11 22 2 12 6 3 45 2 1 3 9 15 20 21 4 4 29Lesser Goldfinch 7 5 5 2 2Lesser Scaup 22 1 1 5 5 16Lesser Yellowlegs 40 2 2 1 1 3 5 6 14 23Loggerhead Shrike 1 1 1Long-billed Curlew 63 27 7 9 2 9 54 3 3 6Mallard 259 2 29 6 9 19 31 32 7 8 14 157 2 1 1 6 15 25 3 6 6 2 2 19 12 2 3 16 4 21 46Page 1 of 2

Grand Future Full Tidal Basin FFTB Full Tidal Basin FTB Muted Tidal Basin MTB Pocket Seasonal Ponds SPTotal 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 63 Total 68 69 70 71 72 73 Total 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 66 Total Marsh 2 9 10 11 12 13 TotalMarbled Godwit 458 1 1 1 3 161 22 62 58 51 354 4 10 14 81 1 5 6Marsh Wren 9 3 3 6 6Mew Gull 1 1 1Mourning Dove 474 2 16 3 2 11 2 3 5 4 3 64 3 32 22 30 63 14 34 11 24 20 17 385 1 1 9 8 19 1 6 13 4 60 3 7 7 9 2 28Northern Flicker 1 1Northern Harrier 2 2 2Northern Mockingbird 20 1 2 9 1 1 1 15 1 1 2 2 1 1Northern Pintail 296 2 2 24 5 2 4 2 41 2 5 7 3 1 5 92 6 107 136 5 5Northern Rough-winged Swallow 70 1 4 27 1 33 3 12 15 1 21 22Northern Shoveler 1543 59 103 9 2 2 150 2 93 44 2 2 332 55 1 42 12 910 2 5 23 10 1 51 2 94 7 8 60 427 33 4 532Orange-crowned Warbler 1 1 1Osprey 2 1 1 1 1Peregrine Falcon 3 2 2 1Pied-billed Grebe 40 1 2 2 2 3 10 2 4 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 16 2 2Red Knot 66 13 13 21 14 1 36 17 17Red-breasted Merganser 22 1 1 6 2 3 1 2 14 1 1 6Reddish Egret 12 4 4 3 11 1Redhead 74 9 6 2 3 4 8 6 1 39 2 2 12 16 1 2 5 4 7 19Red-necked Phalarope 27 2 5 7 9 3 6 18 2 2Red-tailed Hawk 9 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 3Red-winged Blackbird 133 1 3 81 1 1 87 1 1 1 42 2 44Ring-billed Gull 118 14 2 1 3 1 21 3 3 6 3 8 23 3 3 3 1 10 52 1 11 12Rock Pigeon 26 10 4 5 4 3 26Royal Tern 6 3 3 1 1 1 1 1Ruddy Duck 1177 31 4 52 144 58 35 48 65 1 438 17 2 19 251 1 304 107 57 469Ruddy Turnstone 63 13 13 13 4 14 14 2 47 1 1 2 2Sanderling 811 2 95 43 140 671Savannah Sparrow 26 1 11 12 5 4 2 11 3Say's Phoebe 8 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1Semipalmated Plover 457 13 31 3 58 3 108 116 29 38 64 33 280 22 1 4 27 18 9 15 24Snowy Egret 207 2 1 1 1 15 1 1 22 40 4 24 15 14 97 4 2 4 1 10 7 2 30 54 4 4Song Sparrow 38 15 1 2 18 2 18 18Sora 7 3 1 4 3 3Spotted Sandpiper 8 7 7 1 1Surf Scoter 50 6 3 37 4 50Tree Swallow 51 3 6 2 8 1 5 2 4 31 1 1 4 1 14 15Turkey Vulture 2 1 1 1Unidentified Dowitcher 1496 17 2 2 7 2 41 71 81 4 106 50 15 256 5 10 5 32 168 220 921 27 1 28Unidentified Duck 34 1 3 4 30 30Unidentified Flycatcher 1 1 1Unidentified Gull 372 1 1 1 24 18 1 208 30 9 293 3 49 4 3 59 7 2 1 10 7 3 3Unidentified Hummingbird 3 3 3Unidentified Plover 1 1 1Unidentified Sandpiper 4013 40 15 30 18 103 542 3 116 43 704 1 2844 14 6 1 1 2867 14 252 34 8 31 325Unidentified Scaup 53 4 4 7 4 1 12 4 4 33Unidentified Sparrow 4 2 2 1 1 1 1Unidentified Swallow 19 5 5 2 2 4 10 10Unidentified Tern 2 1 1 2Unidentified Yellowlegs 129 1 1 2 2 6 1 3 4 8 1 2 3 6 4 1 17 98Violet-green Swallow 54 4 14 2 25 8 53 1 1Virginia Rail 1 1 1Western Grebe 3 3 3Western Gull 224 1 1 11 4 4 21 3 8 94 3 24 57 189 1 2 3 10 1 1Western Meadowlark 124 1 19 20 2 2 4 3 1 31 7 30 11 15 1 99 1 1Western Sandpiper 9172 71 4 9 28 31 1 19 555 2 16 2 738 3002 587 3150 45 892 22 7698 10 2 14 42 68 448 21 4 193 2 220Western Snowy Plover 145 14 1 1 4 20 5 61 37 4 107 4 4 6 4 18Whimbrel 35 1 1 2 9 7 5 4 5 30 1 1 1 1 1White Pelican 4 3 3 1White-crowned Sparrow 87 10 1 1 6 18 3 3 9 28 1 15 1 54 2 10 12White-tailed Kite 2 1 1 1 1Willet 343 2 5 3 3 13 79 9 42 23 26 179 12 19 2 33 113 1 4 5Wilson's Phalarope 3 2 2 1 1Wrentit 1 1Yellow-rumped Warbler 18 1 1 2 2 1 7 1 1 1 9 9Grand Total 38149 608 342 43 55 86 257 53 16 10 70 15 13 898 28 1683 632 391 108 1547 82 786 154 236 147 8260 4385 956 5867 1826 2051 470 15555 282 343 376 3232 223 262 368 820 74 5980 3824 126 143 647 2681 623 310 4530Page 2 of 2

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-G. FINAL REPORT WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NESTING AT BOLSA CHICA,ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2009Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Western Snowy Plover Nestingat Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California2009Photo by Peter Knappby Peter Knapp* and Bonnie Peterson**December 2009* California Department of Fish & Game** Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December 2009INTRODUCTIONBolsa Chica is a coastal lowland area between two mesas, the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the HuntingtonBeach Mesa in Orange County, California (Figure 1). Bolsa Chica, which a century ago was underfull tidal influence, has started to come full circle. Over 100 years ago, Bolsa Chica was diked-offfrom direct tidal influence but remained below mean sea level, becoming influenced by freshwaterand acted as a sump for local drainage. In 1978, restoration began on the State’s Ecological Reserve,and muted tidal influence was restored to the Inner Bolsa Bay area. At that time, two small islands,North Tern Island and South Tern Island, were created for nesting California least tern (Sternulaantillarum browni), a State and Federal endangered species.In 1997, the Bolsa Chica lowlands were acquired into public ownership. This marked the beginningof a multi-agency effort to design, evaluate, and implement a plan for restoring the fish and wildlifehabitats which had been cut off from the ocean for a century and an operating oil field for 50 years.Construction of the restoration project began in Fall 2004 and was completed in August 2006.By the 2006 breeding season, 3 new nest sites were available for nesting and augmented the preexistingNorth and South Tern Islands in Inner Bolsa Bay. The new ocean inlet, referred to as theFull Tidal Basin, was opened after the conclusion of the breeding season in August 24, 2006. TheFull Tidal Basin is now subject to water level rise and fall that approximates the unequal semidiurnaltidal range of southern California’s ocean waters.The purpose of this investigation is to continue to improve the level of knowledge about the westernsnowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), a federally listed, threatened species that currentlyuses Bolsa Chica, and to attempt interim management actions to benefit the reproductive success ofthis species. In addition, this study will aid in assessing the success of the restoration projects andallow for modifications that would enhance utilization and increase reproductive success of thewestern snowy plover. This annual study was first initiated in 1997. This report addresses the 2009snowy plover breeding season at Bolsa Chica.BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUSThe western snowy plover is a sparrow-sized, white and tan colored shorebird with dark patches oneither side of the neck, behind the eyes, and on the forehead. The coastal western snowy ploverpopulation is defined as those individuals that nest adjacent to or near tidal waters and includes allnesting colonies on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays, and estuaries.The breeding range of the coastal population of the western snowy plover extends along coastalbeaches from the southern portion of Washington State to southern Baja California, Mexico. ThePacific coast population of the western snowy plover is reproductively isolated from the interiorpopulations.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 1

StudyAreaMeters0 250 500 1,000Figure 1. Bolsa Chica Vicinity Map

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009The recognized breeding season of the western snowy plover normally extends from March 1through September 15; however, some earlier nesting is known to occur and did occur in 2009.Generally, three eggs are laid in a nest on the ground, which consists of a shallow depression scrapedin the substrate. Some nests are lined with plant parts, small pebbles, or shell fragments. Both sexesincubate the eggs for an average of 27 days. Snowy plovers will renest after loss of a clutch orbrood. Snowy plover chicks are precocial and leave the nest within hours of hatching in search offood. The tending adult(s) provide danger warnings, thermo-regulation assistance, and guide thechicks to foraging areas, but do not provide food to their chicks. Broods rarely stay in the immediatearea of the nest. Young birds are able to fly within approximately 31 days of hatching.Double brooding and polyandry are the typical. Snowy plover females may leave very young chicksto find another mate. The male typically tends the brood until the chicks fledge. Western snowyplover adults and young forage on invertebrates and insects along intertidal areas, beaches in wetsand and surf cast kelp, foredune areas of dry sand above the high tide, on salt panne, and edges ofsalt marshes and salt ponds (Page et al. 1995, Tucker and Powell 1999). The snowy plover isprimarily a run and glean type of forager.Poor reproductive success resulting from human disturbance, predation, and inclement weather,combined with permanent or long-term loss of nesting habitat to urban development and theencroachment of introduced beach grass, has led to the decline in active nesting colonies as well asan overall decline in the breeding and wintering population of the western snowy plover along thePacific coast of the United States. In southern California, the very large human population and theresultant beach recreation activities by humans have precluded the western snowy plover frombreeding in several historically used beach strand areas. As a result of these factors, the Pacific coastpopulation of the western snowy plover was federally listed as threatened with extinction on March5, 1993 (Federal Register 1993).Studies from 1997-2009 have examined the scope, magnitude, and problems of snowy ploverbreeding activity at Bolsa Chica, before, during and after completion of the restoration project.BOLSA CHICA STUDY AREAThe study area includes several snowy plover nesting areas within Bolsa Chica. These nesting areasinclude: Seasonal Ponds (Cells 2 through 13), Future Full Tidal Basin (Cells 14 through 40 and Cell63), Muted Tidal Basin (Cells 41 through 50 and Cell 66), North Tern Island (NTI), South TernIsland (STI), Nest Site 1 (NS1), Nest Site 2 (NS2), and Nest Site 3 (NS3) (Figure 2). Some areas inthe vicinity of the Bolsa Chica study area were not surveyed in this study, although western snowyplovers may have used the habitats for foraging or loafing. Those areas are the ocean beachimmediately to the west at Bolsa Chica State Beach and Inner Bolsa Bay to the west of West LeveeRoad with the exception of NTI and STI (Figure 2). The study area also did not include Cell 46 (theEdwards Thumb), which remains in private ownership and a different oil lease.The Seasonal Ponds, Future Full Tidal Basin, and Muted Tidal Basin are demarcated into subareas(cells) by the network of slightly elevated roads constructed decades ago for access to the oil wells.These cells were numbered and form the basis for observer navigation, nest mapping, and datarecording. Each cell is unique in configuration and area. The approximate areas of some key cellsare: Cell 10 (17 acres) and Cell 11 (54 acres). The Seasonal Ponds are predominantly salt panne andMerkel & Associates, Inc. 3

2009 Nest LocationsNestNest - Fledged at least 1Predated or AbandonedUnknown Outcome37Nest SitesRoads5066474648494542414039386330312919322820331427342126935251322103624231211271Meters0 100 200 400 600Figure 2. Distribution of Western Snowy Plover Nests in 2009 at Bolsa Chica

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December 2009the most dominant plant species is pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica). Portions of the ponds areseasonally inundated with fresh to brackish water that becomes highly saline later as evaporationconcentrates the remaining water in diminishing pools over the salt panne. The Future Full TidalBasin occurs between the Seasonal Ponds and the Muted Tidal Basin and includes Freeman Creek.These zones are very similar to the Seasonal Ponds and consist mainly of salt panne and pickleweed,although there are some areas that retain water year-round. The Muted Tidal Basin occupies thenortheastern section of Bolsa Chica. These zones generally contain less salt panne, with broadexpanses of pickleweed and are generally considered unsuitable for western snowy plover nesting.Zones 49, 50, 66, and a portion of 48 were exposed to muted tidal influence starting in March 2008.The other zones of the Muted Tidal Basins were inundated by tidal overflow and rainwater for muchof the spring and summer, but were not open directly to the Full Tidal Basin. Areas inundated bywater during most of the breeding season (Cells 30 and 38) are unsuitable for nesting but the marginswere regularly checked for nesting plovers. Large portions of Cells 11 and 13 were inundated thisyear and were not available for snowy plover nesting.NTI and STI are well-established created islands surrounded by the muted tidal waters within InnerBolsa Bay. The surface is dredge spoil with a developed boundary of intertidal or salt tolerantvegetation. STI is a regular breeding area for California least terns but also has several snowy plovernests per season. NTI has been used primarily by larger terns (elegant, Forester’s, royal, andCaspian) and black skimmers (Rynchops niger). After an absence of plover nests for 10 years, in2008, at least one and probably two plover pairs nested on NTI. These nests were abandoned due toconflict between plovers and elegant terns (Thalasseus elegans). In 2009, one nest was initiated, butagain due to conflict with elegant terns, the nest was abandoned by adults, the eggs were salvagedand given to the Wetlands & Wildlife Care Center of Orange County for captive incubation,hatching, and release of young.Photo by P. KnappSnowy plover nest surrounded by a large flock of elegant ternsNS1 is a large linear nesting areabetween Inner Bolsa Bay and theFull Tidal Basin that was builtduring the creation of the FullTidal Basin. The surface is dredgespoil that forms a flat surface thatextends from the West Levee Rd.towards the basin. The shorelineof the nest site is now under fulltidal influence. In 2009,vegetation covered much of thesite, including beach eveningprimrose(Camissoniacheiranthifolia), beach sandverbena(Abronia umbellata var.umbellate), saltgrass (Distichlisspicata), alkali heath (Frankeniasalina), pickleweed, coastaldeerweed (Lotus scoparius), five-hook bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia), and three types of commoniceplant (Mesembryanthemum sp.). Efforts were made during the winter and spring to remove muchof the iceplant but it still persisted in large patches throughout the site. The area along thenortheastern shoreline lacks vegetation or debris that is normally found in a tidal area. Pickleweed isnow spreading on this shoreline.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 5

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009Photo by B. PetersonPhoto by B. PetersonNest Site 1 (NS1) nesting area in October 2008 (left) and October 2009 (right) after the breeding season.NS2 and NS3 are also newly created sites that are within Cell 42 and Cell 14, respectively. NS3 iswithin the Seasonal Ponds and NS2 is located in the Muted Tidal Basin. These sites were built upwith fill and covered with sand. Winds have blown the sand from the surface of NS3, and rainfallhas eroded NS2. In 2009, vegetation on both sites increased. On NS2 this occurred naturally.Chicks on NS2 hatched and foraged on the site through fledging. On NS3 seeded sand from theHuntington State Beach tern site was spread early in the season and transplants from NS1 were made.As in past years chicks on NS3 left the site upon hatching to forage in adjacent cells of the SeasonPond area.Public access is not allowed on any of the western snowy plover nesting sites. The human presencein the study area is mostly related to the operation of the oil field, consisting of large and small oilservice vehicles and small work crews along the roads and well pads.STUDY METHODSPeter Knapp (the primary surveyor) assisted by Wally Ross and Kelly O’Reilly (each of CaliforniaDepartment of Fish & Game (CDFG)), and Bonnie Peterson (Merkel & Associates) surveyed fornesting western snowy plovers a minimum of twice a week, but most often on a daily basis.Surveying begins as soon as there is evidence that the snowy plover is preparing to nest. Normallysurveys would begin in mid to late March; however, in 2009 regular surveys commenced in lateJanuary when scrapes were observed on NS1. The first snowy plover nest was established on STI onFebruary 23. Data collected during this study included the gender of the incubating adult, length ofincubation (days), number of eggs in the clutch, condition of the nest (e.g. signs of disturbance), andthe fate of each nest (hatched, predated, or abandoned). Observations were also recorded of westernsnowy plover distribution, throughout the study area, not just those birds associated with nests.The large majority of suitable western snowy plover nesting habitat in the Seasonal Ponds wasvisible from the road network. Usually between 7 am and noon, the observer(s) would slowly drivein a motor vehicle along the roads that subdivide this area. Frequent stops were made to examinespecific areas adjacent to the road with binoculars or spotting scope without exiting the vehicle. Inthis manner, it was possible to discover most nests within a few days of eggs having been laid. Mostof the time, a nest was evident when an adult was incubating. Other times the adult was foraging orMerkel & Associates, Inc. 6

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009preening near the nest and soon returned to it. The observer would occasionally exit the vehicle inorder to inspect an area not visible from the road or to verify the presence of eggs or chicks in a nest.Close examination of nests was usually conducted only once or twice per nest.STI was surveyed by vehicle from the West Levee Road and on foot as part of the least tern surveys.NTI is used primarily by nesting elegant terns and black skimmers and was surveyed from the WestLevee Road.NS1, NS2, and NS3 are sectioned by markers which form the basis for data recording. NS1 issectioned south to north from A though CC. NS1 was surveyed by vehicle, in the same manner asthe Seasonal Ponds, either from the West Levee Road or the eastern slope of NS1. Due to nestingpatterns of least terns, black skimmers, and other terns, vehicle surveys were suspended mid-May.NS1 was also surveyed on foot as part of least tern surveys. Each nest located on NS1 was markedwith numbered tongue depressors, mapped for ease of relocation on subsequent visits, and a miniexclosure was placed over the nest. NS2 was surveyed by vehicle from the East Levee Road weeklyusing a spotting scope and irregularly on foot. NS3 was surveyed by vehicle from the north end ofthe site.On all sites other than NS1, it was usually possible to follow the movements and determine the fateof chicks of each brood since there was dispersion over space and time sufficient to differentiatebetween broods. In a few cases banded adults identified specific broods. Broods were observed 2 - 7days per week. These regular brood observations were conducted to determine chick survival orfledgling production, as well as to detect movement between cells and use of specific cells for broodrearing. Due to high nesting activity on NS1 in 2009 following broods along such a long narrowreach was difficult. Effort was still made to determine the number of fledglings but it was oftendifficult to assign them to a specific nest.A Range-wide, Breeding Season Window Survey was conducted at Bolsa Chica in May 2009. Thesurvey was conducted in the same manner as in previous years and in accordance to the guidelinesset out in the Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (USFWS2007).PROTECTION FROM PREDATORSOnce a nest was discovered, a welded wire mini-exclosure (ME) was anchored in place over the topof the nest and left in place until the eggs in the nest hatched. The MEs are 28-inches in width on allfour sides and 16-inch in height. These dimensions have proven effective in deterring predation bycorvids, gulls, and coyotes (Canis latrans).Observations were made of potential predators during the surveys. Predator management actionswere then enacted commensurate with the threat to snowy plover breeding activity by that specificpredator. Predator management has been a necessary recovery action for the California least tern fordecades. In places, such as Bolsa Chica, where snowy plover nests in proximity to the least tern,predator management activities on behalf of one species will also benefit the other species. In 2009,predator management was undertaken by Wally Ross.In 2009, as in past years, simulated nest scrapes were constructed using quail eggs injected withbitter tasting, non-lethal contents. This aversion technique has been successfully used in previousyears in an attempt to deter coyote depredation of snowy plover eggs. The use of “aversion” nestsMerkel & Associates, Inc. 7

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December 2009was intended to teach coyotes to leave ME-covered eggs alone, without harming or removingcoyotes. From February 1 through April, these “aversion nests”, with three baited eggs each, wereconstructed in areas where snowy plovers had nested in the past. Some nests were covered with anME and some were not. The use of aversion nests and the ME contribute greatly to low eggpredation in 2009.Clay roof tiles were placed on NS1 and NS3 to provide shelter for young chicks.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONNUMBERS OF MALE AND FEMALE SNOWY PLOVERSDuring May 2009, a range-wide breeding season window survey was conducted. The total numberof snowy plovers present at Bolsa Chica was 47 adults: 25 female and 22 male (Table 1). Thesenumbers were used to determine fledgling per male.Table 1. Males, Females, Nests and Fledgling Production 1997-2009Year Females MalesTotalTotal % ChickFledglingsNestsFledge/Nest SurvivalFledge/Male2009 25 22 70 42-70* 0.60-1.00* 22.8-38.0* 1.9-3.5*2008 22 28 67 57-109* 0.85-1.62* 29.5-56.5* 2.0-3.9*2007 18 12 50 25 0.50 19.2 2.12006 27 35 71 64 0.90 38.5 1.82005 25 41 51 75 1.47 65.2 1.82004 25 20 65 79 1.22 53.0 4.02003 15 16 32 44 1.38 57.9 2.82002 19 20 50 27 0.54 36.0 1.42001 19 18 55 57 1.04 90.5 3.22000 15 16 39 42 1.08 85.4 2.61999 12 11 38 23 0.61 32.4 2.11998 11 16 34 25 0.74 37.3 1.61997 14 20 30 nd nd nd ndFl = fledglings, nd = not determined* based on minimum/maximum numbers of fledglingsNEST DISTRIBUTION AND CHRONOLOGIESThe snowy plover utilized all available nesting sites at Bolsa Chica in 2009; however, the distributionof nests indicates that NS1 and the Seasonal Ponds were, as in past years, the preferred plover nestingsites. NS1 had 46% of all the nests and the Seasonal Ponds had 23% of the nests (Figure 2, Table 2).The most utilized cells in the Seasonal Ponds were Cell 10 (9%) and Cell 12 (7%). NS2 was used bynesting snowy plovers for the first time since 2006. Nests were also established for the first time inCells 45, 25, and 31. Appendix 1 provides the cell location, start and end dates, nest fates, eggs andchicks produced for each nest.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 8

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009Distribution of nests on the Seasonal Ponds fluctuates annually (Appendix 2); however, in 2009many of the cells that were commonly used, such as Cell 11 and Cell 13, were not entirely availablefor nesting plovers in 2009 due to high water levels. A pump-down of water levels was undertakenin May 2009 to drain water levels; however, it was too late in the nesting season to make these cellscompletely available for nesting plovers. Typically these cells collect water during the winter rains,but later drain down somewhat by gravity into Freeman Creek, exposing some dry salt panne prior tothe breeding season. Through the season, the available salt panne expands due to evaporation of thepooled water.Table 2. 2009 Nest, Nest Fate, and Reproductive Success Distribution by CellLocation Total Nests Nests FailedNests Hatched(# chicks)Fledglings*Seasonal Ponds: 16 0 16 (42) 17Cell 9 1 0 1 (3) 2Cell 10 6 0 6 (17) 6Cell 11 2 0 2 (5) 2Cell 12 5 0 5 (13) 5Cell 13 1 0 1 (2) 0Road 1 0 1 (2) 2Future Full Tidal Basin: 9 0 9 (23) 4Cell 14 2 0 2 (6) 0Cell 19 2 0 2 (4) 2Cell 22 3 0 3(8) 2Cell 25 1 0 1 (3) 0Cell 30 1 0 1 (2) 0Muted Tidal Basin (Cell 45) 1 0 1 (3) 0Nest Site 1* 32 0 32 (90) 17-28Nest Site 2 3 1 2 (5) 1Nest Site 3 5 1 4 (12) 1North Tern Island 1 0 1 (3) 2South Tern Island 3 1 2 (6) 0Total 70 3 67 (184) 42-70* Of the minimum number of fledglings 10 were salvaged eggs (7) and chicks (3) raised at Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center.Note: Nests were not monitored on NS1 for the entire season; therefore, nests failed and nests hatched are for known nests(minimum number). The number of fledglings is based on the minimum and maximum number of fledglings for NS1.The number of nests on NS1 has increased from 27 nests (including those in adjacent Full TidalBasin) the first year the site was available, to 37 in 2008, and 32 in 2009 (Appendix 2).Reproductive success remained consistent on NS1 with a fledge rate of 0.60-1.00 (fledge/nest). Theincreased usage of NS1 has been balanced out by a decreased use of the Seasonal Ponds. Thereproductive success in the Seasonal Ponds was very low in 2007 at 0.28, increasing to 0.90 in 2008and 1.06 in 2009, even with suboptimal conditions.The Seasonal Pond Cells, in addition to the nesting areas, are also the primary feeding areas forhatched plovers other than those from STI, NS1, and NS2. More than one cell maybe used by abrood and often a brood will travel to another cell within one or two days of hatching. As anexample, although there were only two nests in Cell 11 in 2009, at least six broods, not hatched fromCell 11, used this cell for foraging and most of the chicks fledged.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 9

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009The State and Federal Endangered California least tern also nests at Bolsa Chica. In 2006, theynested on STI and on the newly created NS1 and have continued this nesting pattern through 2009.Snowy plover egg-laying typically begins several weeks before the least tern begins its egg-laying.This has been the case at Bolsa Chica. The two species tolerate the co-location of their nests.Black skimmers, royal (Thalasseus maximus), California least, Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia),American avocet (Recurvirostra Americana), black-necked stilt (Himantopus himantopus), killdeer(Charadrius vociferus), andhorned lark (Eremophilaalpestris) all nested on NS1 in2009. Black skimmers havenested on NS1 since 2007.Elegant terns did not nest on NS1in 2009 but used the site asroosting areas especially aftertheir fledglings left NTI. Thetight colonial style of nesting ofthe terns and black skimmers didTerns and black skimmers on NS1.not exclude the snowy ploverfrom any portion of the nestingarea. However, it is suspectedthat their presence on NS1 had aneffect on the overall reproductive success of the snowy plover once the nests hatched and the chicksleft the protection of the ME. Black skimmers are known to be predators of tern chicks (Gochfeldand Burger 1994).25# of Active Nests201510597-05 ave20062007200820090Survey Date17-Aug11-Aug2-Aug27-Jul21-Jul14-Jul9-Jul2-Jul25-Jun19-Jun15-Jun9-Jun3-Jun27-May23-May18-May13-May6-May1-May27-Apr22-Apr17-Apr11-Apr4-Apr29-Mar23-Mar15-Mar5-Mar23-FebFigure 3. 1997-2009 Bolsa Chica Active Nest ChronologyMerkel & Associates, Inc. 10

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December 20091412# of Nests10864initiatedhatchedpredated/lost20Feb 16-28Mar 1-15Mar 16-31Apr 1-15Apr 16-30May 1-15May 16-31Jun 1-15Survey Time PeriodJun 16-30Jul 1-15Jul 16-31Aug 1-15Figure 4. Biweekly Western Snowy Plover Nest Initiation, Hatching, & Loss at Bolsa Chica in2009In 2009, the first plover nest was initiated February 23, almost a full month prior to previous years.Snowy plover nesting rose with the initial peak occurring prior to mid-April and at least 10 days priorto the initial peak in 2008 (Figure 3). The last nests hatched early in August, about a week or moreearlier than in previous years (Figure 4). Even with the early start in nesting, the season werecomparable to 2008, with 26 (37%) nests had been initiated by May 1 and half of the nests had beeninitiated by May 12.EGG,CHICK,AND FLEDGLING PRODUCTIONAll 70 nests in 2009 were judged to be complete clutches. Nine completed clutches were 2-eggclutches, while 61 were 3-egg clutches (Appendix 1).Photo by C. EggerBanded fledgling released from Wetlands andWildlife Care Center. Note the discoloration on thechest.Seven nests were abandoned and appearedto be unrelated to each other (Nests #1, 18,27, 46, 47, 48, and 52). Nest #1 wasprobably abandoned due to presence of aperegrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) on STI.Nest #18 on NTI was abandoned due toelegant tern harassment of adult ploversattempting to reach their nest to incubateeggs. Nest #47 in Cell 10, nest #48 in Cell11, and nest #52 in NS2 were abandonedfor unknown reasons.The eggs from nests #18, 47, and 48 werecollected after determination thatabandonment had occurred and were givento the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center ofMerkel & Associates, Inc. 11

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009Orange County for possible salvage (Table 3). Eight of the nine eggs hatched at the care center andwere raised to fledging, banded, and subsequently released in the seasonal pond area of Bolsa Chica.In addition to the nine eggs, three abandoned chicks from Nest # 11 on NS1 were given to the carecenter for salvage. They were raised at the care center, fledged, were banded and subsequentlyreleased in the Bolsa Chica area (Table 3). Two other nests (#27 and 46) contained non-viable eggsthat were incubated by the respective females for unusual periods. Nest #27 from May through July21 and Nest #64 from June 3 through August 30. This behavior is unexplained and has not been seenbefore at Bolsa Chica.Table 3. Western Snowy Plovers Banded at the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center of OrangeCountyBand Nest Arrived Date Date LastCombination # As Banded Released ObservedCommentYNRW 11 chick 5/20/2009 6/19/2009 7/17/2009YNYY 11 chick 5/20/2009 6/19/2009 7/13/2009YNWB 11 chick 5/20/2009 6/19/2009 6/19/2009YNBW 18 egg 5/20/2009 6/19/2009 6/19/2009YNBB 18 egg 5/20/2009 6/19/2009 7/28/2009YNRY 18 egg 5/20/2009 -- -- euthanizedYNBG 47 egg 7/17/2009 8/8/2009 8/25/2009YNBR 47 egg 7/17/2009 8/8/2009 10/15/2009YNBY 47 egg 7/17/2009 -- -- predatedYNGB 48 egg 7/17/2009 8/8/2009 8/25/2009YNYW 48 egg 7/17/2009 8/8/2009 10/29/200948 egg -- -- -- did not hatchA total of 201 snowy plover eggs were produced at Bolsa Chica in 2009, with 17 eggs abandoned orfailing to hatch, the remaining eggs produced 184 chicks. Of these 184 total chicks produced in2009, a minimum of 42 chicks (23%) and a maximum of 70 chicks (38%) were estimated to havesurvived to fledge (Table 2). This is the highest number of hatched nests recorded at Bolsa Chica.The number of estimated fledglings seems to be dropping compared to previous years; however, thisis based on minimum numbers of fledglings for the past two years (Figure 5). Sixty-six nestssurvived to hatch with a hatching success rate of 94.3%. This is the highest hatching success rate inall years surveyed with the exception of 2007 at 96.0%.The total fledgling count was difficult to determine in both 2008 and 2009 due to the nesting activityon NS1; black skimmer, royal tern, Caspian tern, American avocet, black-necked stilt, and hornedlark all nested on NS1 along with the California least tern and the western snowy plover. Although,the site was surveyed on a weekly basis it was difficult to track hatching nests and chick activity dueto the large number of nesting birds on the site. The total fledgling count for 2009 was estimated tobe between 42 and 70.In 2009, ten dead eggs were observed, including the eggs in two abandoned nests that were incubatedfor almost two months. With 201 total eggs laid in 2009, 5.0% of total eggs were dead eggs. Nolaboratory analysis was made of these dead eggs.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 12

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009In this study, when one or more eggs of a clutch hatch, several days are allowed to pass before anyegg(s) that may have been abandoned are removed. No apparently abandoned eggs have been seento hatch.908070# Nests60504030Hatched NestsFailed NestsFledglings201001997*199819992000200120022003Year20042005200620072008**2009**** based on the minimum number of fledglingsFigure 5. Comparison of Number of Western Snowy Plover Hatched Nests, Failed Nests, andFledglings 1997-2009 at Bolsa ChicaBROOD TRACKINGDue to the chronological and geographic spacing of each brood, it is often possible to locate andidentify individual broods over the period before they fledge. As generally seen in prior years, in2009 each brood tended to stay together and the males prevented overlap or co-mingling with otherbroods. There were confrontations between the males if the broods wondered to close together ortried to take advantage of the same resources.Broods hatched from NS3 relocated within days to other locations to seek food. Snowy ploversreadily used the roads of Bolsa Chica to cover distances of 1/3 to 3/4 mile. In the seasonal ponds,broods would move about or change cells but could generally be identified. Broods on NS1 were nottracked on a regular basis to avoid possible disturbance of other nesting birds on the site (least, royal,and Caspian terns, and black skimmers).OBSERVATIONS OF BANDED ADULTSA male, identified by banding color code (WNGY) has nested at Bolsa Chica every year since 2004.This male was banded at Guadalupe Dunes near Pismo Beach in 2003. He has wintered at Surfside,Orange County and Bolsa Chica State Beach for the past three years. In 2009 he had at least one neston NS1 (Nest #31).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 13

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009A female (WWYY) banded as an adult at the South Spit, Humboldt Bay in 2006, nested twice atBolsa Chica on STI in 2007 and three times in 2008. In 2009, this female nested at least once onNS1 (Nest #32).A female (SKM) banded at Camp Pendleton (year unknown), wintered at Surfside, Orange County in2007/8 and bred at least once at Bolsa Chica in 2009 (Nest #10). A male (SKM) also from CampPendleton nested a least once at Bolsa Chica in 2009.Other banded bird sightings not breeding at Bolsa Chica were as follows: RWRW on April 7-12,SYK on May 28, and PGYB on August 14. In previous years more banded birds were sighted asmigrants in July and August.PREDATIONIn 2009, no nests were depredated. The low rate of nest loss and high degree of chick productionwas attributable in 2009 to the following management actions: a) deployment of ME’s to deter corvidand coyote predation, b) the use of “aversion” nests to deter predation by coyotes and, c) regularmonitoring. Nest #1 on STI was probably abandoned due to the presence of a peregrine flaconroosting on STI.Of the 70 nests, 35 are known to have not fledged chicks. Four of these 35 did not produce chicksdue to abandonment. One brood (Nest #9) was depredated by gulls and two broods (Nest #20 and21) were depredated by squirrels shortly after hatching. A gull-billed tern (Gelochilodon nilotica)was also observed depredating chicks and is estimated to have taken a minimum of 18 plover chicks.Photo by S. SmithPhoto by P. KnappGull-billed tern with snowyplover chick (above). Two gullbilledterns with adult snowyplover and brood nearby(left).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 14

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009The gull-billed tern has increased its nesting presence near least tern and snowy plover nesting areasof San Diego County. This tern forages on insects, lizards, crabs, and young birds and is a threat toleast tern and snowy plover chicks. In 2009, the first gull-billed tern sighting was on March 26.Subsequent sightings were made throughout April and infrequently in May and June. The lastsighting was on June 27. The gull-billed terns did not nest at Bolsa Chica in 2009 and at timesduring May and June were not seen. Sightings were in the Seasonal Pond area and NS1. It isestimated that at least 18 plover chicks, one of which was observed, were attributable to the gullbilledtern. Most sightings were of two birds but one time three birds were present on NS1.American kestrels (Falco sparverius) were often present in the seasonal pond area and loss of ploverchicks may be attributable to these birds.Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) were regularly present at Bolsa Chica, but no hawk nests wereknown to be present in 2009. Red-tailed hawks were present continuously on the power polesopposite STI. Although there was no documented take of snowy plover chicks by red-tailed hawk,one took at least one least tern chick from STI from this perch in 2008. These red-tailed hawks wereresistant to repeated attempts to trap them and remained present during the entire breeding season.One red-tailed hawk was trapped in the Seasonal Pond area and was relocated.Table 3. Bolsa Chica Predator Removal Summary over 10-year period 1999-2009PotentialPredator2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999Gull-billedTern- -AmericanCrow6 12 10 - 15 99 118 52 80 91 10AmericaKestrel5 4 4 6 13 19 5 12 13 15 11LoggerheadShrike- - - 4 1 10 5 3 6 2 5CommonRaven5 - 4 2 1 2 4 5 6 3 2Cooper’sHawk- 1 - - 8 - - - - - -PeregrineFalcon- - 1 - - - - - - - -Red-tailedHawk1 1 - - - - - - - - -Gulls - 1 7 - 1 - - - - - -Skunk - - - - - 2 1 - - - -VirginiaOpossum1 - - - - - - - - - -GroundSquirrel4 3 unkn* unkn* unkn* unkn* unkn* - - - -Brown Rat 1 - - - - - - - - - -* bait stations used, therefore the number removed is unknown (unkn).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 15

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December 2009Chick loss to black skimmers is believed to be significant on NS1. The only other potential predatorsregularly seen on NS1 were gulls. Other breeding birds on NS1 including elegant, royal, andCaspian terns were not probable predators.Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), andperegrine falcon were present during all or part of the breeding season but were not suspectedpredators in 2009.No instance of predation or disease mortality of adult snowy plovers was detected in 2009.MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONSThe western snowy plover breeding season resulted in high nest survival rates in 2009. The high nestsurvival rates are attributable to management actions such as the use of MEs. The fledgling rate(Table 1), however, was low to moderate, ranging from 42 to 70 fledglings (0.6 – 1.00fledglings/nest). Therefore, management recommendations focus on maintaining existingmanagement actions that have worked in the past as well as taking additional steps focused onimproving fledgling success. The endangered California least tern, which nests in the same locationsas the western snowy plover, needs to be considered in all management efforts.Many of these recommendations from past years have been implemented with good results. Theseactions include: 1) removing non-native plant cover with herbicides and by hand on all the man-madenest sites, keeping the area clear for nesting; 2) placing tiles on the nest sites for the chicks to hideunder, providing protection from both predation and trampling; 3) deploying MEs on every snowyplover nest to prevent egg loss due to predation and trampling; 4) focusing predator monitoring andmanagement on known nest and chick predators. These management efforts have been effective inthe enhancement of nesting sites and improving reproductive success of the snowy plover and shouldcontinue. It is also recommended that monitoring continue with the same intensity that has occurredin the past in order to maintain this quality of management within the nesting sites.There are also a number of management issues that are still unresolved although some effort has beenmade to improve or change the situation. These issues include an on-going problem of overcrowdingon NS1, water management in the Seasonal Ponds, and the need to develop methods to increaseusage of NS2 and NS3. These management issues are discussed in detail below.1. Develop methods to manage overcrowding on NS1.There are currently eight species nesting on NS1 including American avocet, California least tern,black skimmer, royal tern, Caspian tern, black-necked stilt, killdeer, horned lark, as well as thewestern snowy plover. In the later part of the breeding season large number of elegant terns usedNS1 for roosting but did not nest there in 2009. The terns and skimmers are colonial nesters and nestin large groups. This high density nesting probably benefits all species by deterring predators fromentering the site. However, mortality of California least tern and snowy plover nests and chicksincreases due to trampling by these larger species. Nest trampling has been observed at Californialeast tern nests while snowy plovers have had the protection of the ME covering their nest. Once theeggs hatch the snowy plover chicks are highly mobile, leaving the security of the ME and venturingthrough the colonial nesting sites to reach the shoreline, risking the possibility of trampling andaggressive behavior from the colonial nesters.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 16

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December 2009This problem of overcrowding is unresolved, although a number of options have been discussed.One of these options included encouraging the terns and skimmers to return to NTI, where theynested exclusively until 2007. This option of getting these species to return to the island is becomingless appealing due to the large number of birds and the small size of the island. Opportunities shouldbe sought to increase the size of NTI. There may be some opportunity for this kind of expansionwhen and if future dredging efforts occur in the Full Tidal Basin.NS1 is also designed as a long linear nesting site with very little natural protection for the youngplover chicks. These chicks are restricted to NS1 until they can fly due to the lack of suitableadjacent habitat. Some enhancement efforts have been made or have occurred naturally on NS1 thathave improved the structure of the foraging areas. Large logs have been secured along the high tideline to try to enhance the structure of the shoreline. This has been implemented on a small scale todetermine if it is a viable and useful enhancement effort. It is expected that during the high wintertides that some areas around the logs will erode and others will accumulate sand and debris. Somenaturally occurring enhancement has also occurred over time. There is vegetation accumulatingabove the high tide line that was utilized this year by foraging chicks. Pickleweed is also starting torecruit along and just below the high tide line. It is expected that these areas will prove to providefurther shelter and structure to the area but may need to be managed to provide open access to waterat multiple locations, as the vegetation matures to a dense structure.2. Improve water management in the Seasonal PondsA number of cells or large portions of cells within the Seasonal Ponds were not available in 2008 and2009 for nesting due to flooding. These ponds frequently flood during the winter but dry out prior tothe snowy plover nesting season. In 2008 and 2009 water was not able to drain into Freeman Creekdue to elevated levels in the creek and the closed condition of the storm water release flap gates. Alarge portion of Cell 11, in particular, has been highly used for snowy plover nesting in the past yearsbut was largely unavailable in 2008 and 2009. This flooding caused the snowy plover to expand intopotentially less suitable cells as well as roadways in order to locate suitable, dry nesting areas.Nesting in the Seasonal Ponds has decreased over the last 4 years, probably due to the creation ofNS1; therefore, increasing the number of cells available in the Seasonal Ponds would also provideincreased potential for nesting opportunities. Based on changing conditions in the Full Tidal Basinand Muted Tidal Basin, it is likely that similar pond basin flooding will continue to occur in futureyears. Pumping of selected cells has occurred in both 2008 and 2009 to alleviate the conditions andincrease nesting areas for the plovers. A Water Management Plan is currently being drafted that willinclude provisions to seasonally reduce water levels in the Seasonal Ponds and provide additionalplover nesting and foraging habitat as a management element.3. Increase usage and reproductive success on NS2 and NS3.NS2 had one snowy plover nest in 2006 and three nests in 2009. NS3 had five snowy plover nests in2008 with a low 0.2 fledge rate (1 fledge/5 nests). One California least tern nested on NS3 in 2009.No other species have utilized these nest sites. Efforts have been made on NS3 to retain the sand byplacing fabric fencing in areas. Sand dunes have formed allowing for more structure on the site andallowing native dune plants to take root. This successful effort could also be utilized elsewhere.Vegetation on both sites is required to provide shelter, enhance foraging, and retain sand on the nestsites. This could be accomplished by watering the sites during the winter months to encouragegrowth from the existing seed bank. An opportunity may also exist for recontouring the surface ofMerkel & Associates, Inc. 17

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009the nest sites such that they pond water during the winter and dry to a salt crust during the summermonths. This should be explored as a means to foster desired habitat conditions.With several issues yet to be resolved, Bolsa Chica has also been presented with a new challengewith the arrival of the gull-billed tern. This CDF&G species of special concern is a known predatorof the western snowy plover and the California least tern and has been an on-going problem in SanDiego County where they have recently expanded their nesting range to south San Diego Bay.Predator management is complex for this rare species; therefore, alternative efforts to protect thesnowy plover and least tern chicks in San Diego County should be followed and their successesshould be emulated at Bolsa Chica.4. Develop methods to increase knowledge of causes of plover chick mortality.Identifiable causes of mortality in plover chicks have been, for the most part, limited to specificdepredation events. This has left potential causes of mortality unknown. In 2009 after eliminatingfledged chicks and known depredation, approximately 100 chick deaths were unaccounted for.Depredation by American kestrels, corvids, gulls and unknown predators are the assumed cause.An “eyes on the colony” volunteer effort will be initiated in 2010 to monitor the north end of NS1from the public viewing area. This will hopefully identify causes of brood loss for both the least ternand snowy plover, contributing to a better understanding of what is occurring at least at the north endof NS1.Use of a blind to study the interaction of the various species nesting on NS1 will also contribute toidentification of potential interaction conflicts. This activity would be undertaken in the area used byblack skimmers and larger tern species, most likely in the central and southern sections of NS1.Ongoing and adaptive management actions are essential to improving western snowy ploverreproductive success at Bolsa Chica, which provides the best nesting option for snowy plovers withina 60-mile radius.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 18

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009LITERATURE CITEDFancher, J. 1998. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California. 1997. Areport of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office. April 1998. 22pp.Fancher, J., R. Zembal, L. Hays, and P. Knapp. 1998. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica,Orange County, California. 1998. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.October 1998. 27pp.Fancher, J., L. Hays, and P. Knapp. 2001. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 1999 and 2000. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, CarlsbadOffice. February 2001. 34ppFancher, J., L. Hays, and P. Knapp. 2002. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2001. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.February 2002. 24ppFancher, J., L. Hays, and P. Knapp. 2002. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2002. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.December 2002. 23ppFancher, J., P. Knapp, and L. Hays. 2004. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2003. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office. January2004 22ppFancher, J, P. Knapp, and L. Hays. 2005. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2004. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office. January2005 25ppFancher, J., P. Knapp, and L. Hays. 2005. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2005. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.December 2005 28ppFancher, J., P. Knapp, and L. Hays. 2006. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2006. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.February 2007 28ppFederal Register. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatenedstatus of the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover. Federal Register 58:12864-12874.Gochfield M. and J. Burger 1994. Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger). In The Birds of North America,No. 108 (A. Poole and F. Gills, Eds.) Philadelphia: The academy of Natural Sciences;Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.Knapp, P. and B. Peterson. 2008. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, Orange County,California 2008. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office. December 200825ppMerkel & Associates, Inc. 19

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009Knapp, P., B. Peterson and J. Fancher. 2007. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, OrangeCounty, California 2007. A report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office.December 2007 22ppPage, G. W., J. S. Warriner, J.C. Warriner, and P.W. Patton 1995. Snowy Plover (Charadriusalexandrinus) in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) No. 154. Acad. Nat.Sci. PhiladelphiaRoss, W.L. 1999. Bolsa Chica Wetlands 1999 breeding season predator management report. A reportfor the Fish and Wildlife Service. 3ppRoss, W.L. 2000. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2000 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 10ppRoss, W.L. 2001. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2001 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 ppRoss, W.L. 2002. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2002 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 ppRoss, W.L. 2003. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2003 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 ppRoss, W.L. 2004. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2004 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 13 ppRoss, W.L. 2005. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2005 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 ppRoss, W.L. 2006. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2006 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 ppRoss, W.L. 2007. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2007 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 pp.Ross, W.L. 2008. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2008 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 pp.Ross, W.L. 2009. Bolsa Chica Wetlands California least tern, western snowy plover, 2009 breedingseason predator management report. A report for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 pp.Tucker, M. A. and A. N. Powell. 1999. Snowy Plover diets in 1995 at a Coastal Southern CaliforniaBreeding Site. Western Birds 30: 44-48.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the WesternSnowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). In 2 volumes. Sacramento, California. xiv+ 751 pages.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 20

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Formal section 7 Biological Opinion on the Bolsa ChicaLowland Restoration Project, Orange County, California (FWS No. 1-66-01-1653). April 16,2001. 22pp with attachment.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, and State Lands Commission. 2001. Finalenvironmental impact report/environmental impact statement for the Bolsa Chica LowlandsRestoration Project. April 2001. Appendices A-H and Volumes I-VI.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 21

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009Appendix 1. Snowy plover eggs laid, chicks hatched, and fledged at Bolsa Chica, 2009Nest # Cell # date found date ended eggs nest fate chicks fledglings1 STI 2-23 3-08 3 A 0 02 NS1 Y2 3-12 4-16 3 H 3 03 NS1 N1 3-14 4-15 3 H 3 04 NS1 G1 3-16 -- 3 H 3 05 NS1 D1 3-16 4-23 3 H 3 06 NS1 BB2 3-17 4-11 3 H 3 07 NS1 I1 3-18 4-17 3 H 3 08 NS1 Z1 3-23 4-19 3 H 3 09 NS1 P3 3-24 4-27 3 H 3 010 NS3 6D 3-25 4-26 3 H 3 111 NS1 V1 3-25 5-01 3 H* 3 312 NS3 A2/3 3-27 4-28 3 H 3 013 NS1 F2 3-29 4-26 3 H 3 014 NS3 6A 3-29 4-26 3 H 3 015 CELL 10 3-31 5-03 3 H 3 116 NS1 L1 4-01 5-04 3 H 3 --17 NS1 E2 4-11 5-11 3 H 3 --18 NTI 4-16 5-10 3 H* 3 219 NS1 Z2 4-16 5-11 3 H 3 120 CELL 12 4-18 5-12 2 H 2 021 CELL 12 4-20 5-15 3 H 3 022 NS2 4-24 5-27 3 2H1A 2 123 STI H4 4-23 5-26 3 H 3 024 CELL 10 4-28 5-28 3 H 3 025 NS1 V3 4-29 6-02 3 H 3 --26 NS1 K1 4-30 5-21 3 2H1A 2 --27 NS3 B4 5-01 7-21 3 A 0 028 NS1 E1 5-01 5-28 3 H 3 029 CELL 22 5-04 5-28 3 H 3 130 CELL 11 5-06 6-03 3 H 3 031 NS1 R1 5-06 -- 3 H 3 032 NS1 V1 5-06 6-02 3 H 3 --33 CELL 19 5-11 6-05 3 2H1A 2 234 NS1 N1 5-06 6-02 3 H 3 --35 CELL 9 5-12 6-07 3 H 3 236 NS1 T1 5-12 6-16 3 H 3 --37 NS1 D1 5-12 6-22 2 H 2 --38 NS1 Z1 5-14 -- 3 H 3 3Merkel & Associates, Inc. 22

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December, 2009Nest # Cell # date found date ended eggs nest fate chicks fledglings39 CELL 25 5-18 6-15 3 H 3 040 CELL 12 5-27 6-27 3 H 3 141 CELL 12 5-29 6-24 3 H 3 342 STI 5-27 6-26 3 H 3 043 NS2 5-28 -- 3 H 3 044 NS1 H1 5-26 -- 3 H 3 --45 NS1 I-J1 6-3 -- 3 H 3 --46 NS1 L1 6-3 -- 2 A 0 047 CELL 10 6-1 6-26 3 H* 3 348 CELL 11 6-4 7-09 3 H* 2 249 CELL 10 6-4 -- 2 H 2 050 RD9/10 6-5 7-03 2 H 2 251 NS1 Y3 6-5 6-26 3 H 3 252 NS2 6-6 6-20 3 A 0 053 CELL 22 6-07 6-30 3 H 3 154 NS1 B2 6-07 7-08 3 H 3 055 CELL 14 6-09 7-05 3 H 3 056 NS3 6-15 7-17 3 H 3 057 CELL 10 6-22 7-17 3 H 3 258 CELL 14 6-22 7-17 3 H 3 059 NS1 Y2 6-23 7-09 3 H 3 360 NS1 O2 6-16 7-07 3 H 3 061 CELL 45 6-25 7-20 3 H 3 062 NS1 T/S3 6-26 7-17 2 H 2 263 CELL 19 6-30 7-21 2 H 2 064 CELL 30 7-08 8-02 2 H 2 065 CELL 13 7-08 7-28 3 2H1A 2 066 CELL 22 7-08 8-6 2 H 2 067 CELL 10 7-09 -- 3 H 3 068 CELL 12 7-09 8-03 3 2H1A 2 169 NS1 7-26 -- 3 H 3 270 NS1 7-26 -- 3 H 3 12009 Season TotalsP = predated; A = abandoned; H – hatched, -- = data unknown201eggs3A, 67H70 Nests184chicks42++fledglingsNote: In the Nest Fate column, 2H1A means the nest hatched but only two eggs produced chicks, one egg was abandoned.*chicks or eggs (see Table 3) were abandoned but salvaged and sent to the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center of Orange Countyand subsequently released after fledging.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 23

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2009 December 2009Appendix 2. Distribution of Western Snowy Plover Nests at Bolsa Chica for 1997 through 2009.Distribution of nestsYearTotal #Nests Cell 1 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 8 Cell 59 Cell 44 Cell 62 FTB NTI NS1 NS2 NS3 Total1997 31 5 1 4 3 1 141998 34 7 5 1 1 2 161999 38 2 9 1 1 1 142000 39 1 9 1 112001 55 1 1 11 4 1 1 192002 50 8 3 1 1 1 142003 32 1 8 1 1 112004 65 6 9 1 1 172005 51 1 5 62006 71 13 15 1 8 372007 50 19 8 272008 67 1 37 5 432009 70 1 32 3 5 41Cells that were no longer availableCells only available after 2005Year Cell 2 Cell 9 Cell 10 Cell 11 Cell 12 Cell 13 Cell 14 Cell 17 Cell 18 Cell 19 Cell 22 Cell 25 Cell 30 Cell 31 Cell 32 Cell 33 Cell 34 Cell 36 Cell 45 STI Total1997 4 7 1 1 2 2 171998 2 7 6 1 1 1 181999 6 5 1 1 5 4 2 242000 2 6 12 1 1 1 1 3 1 282001 1 8 11 9 5 2 362002 1 2 1 10 3 3 5 10 1 362003 6 1 2 2 1 9 212004 5 12 13 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 5 482005 1 6 8 12 3 1 4 3 7 452006 2 6 5 13 2 1 4 332007 1 6 3 1 3 4 1 4 232008 2 5 3 4 6 4 242009 2 6 2 5 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 29Merkel & Associates, Inc. 24

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-A. MONTHLY TIDE PLOTS 2009Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for January 2009.Elevations are in ft NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00Jan09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for February 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00-4.00Feb09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for March 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.7.006.005.004.003.002.001.000.00-1.00-2.00Mar09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for April 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00Apr09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for May 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00May09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for June 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00Jun09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for July 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00Jul09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for August 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00Aug09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for September 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00Sep09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for October 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00Oct09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for November 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00Nov09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2009 Annual ReportMonthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for December 2009.Elevations are in feet NAVD.8.006.004.002.000.00-2.00Dec09Tide (ft-NAVD)LAMeas(NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-B. BOLSA BEACH PROFILE PLOTSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-C. MSL BEACH WIDTHMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportSurveyDateMean Sea Level Beach Width (4) (m)Transect Designation249+30 311+22 318+30 333+30 350+71 378+29 423+89May 1963 36.6 (1) 17.7 (1) 21.0 (1) 28.9 (1) 33.0 (1) 33.6 (1) 71.2 (1)Jul 1964 40.1 (1) 22.7 (1) 33.2 (1) 29.9 (1) - - -Oct 1966 48.8 (1) 24.6 (1) 33.4 (1) 30.7 (1) 35.4 (1) 22.0 (1) 58.0 (1)Apr 1969 63.2 (1) 34.6 (1) 47.5 (1) 40.4 (1) 40.4 (1) 25.2 (1) 43.6 (1)May 1973 88.6 (1) 46.4 (1) 49.0 (1) 40.1 (1) 49.0 (1) 19.2 (1) 34.5 (1)Dec 1978 83.3 (1) 61.6 (1) - - 37.4 (1) 29.6 (1) 55.0 (1)Jun 1979 113.8 (1) 74.4 (1) - - 51.9 (1) 42.3 (1) 67.6 (1)Apr 1982 82.5 (1) 55.3 (1) 57.3 (1) 48.9 (1) 44.2 (1) 19.5 (1) 70.3 (1)Jan 1983 84.0 (1) 54.4 (1) 58.4 (1) 53.4 (1) 43.6 (1) 26.2 (1) 69.5 (1)Feb 1992 89.3 58.3 - - 61.4 11.9 82.1May 1992 96.4 61.6 - - 58.3 14.3 75.1Nov 1992 93.5 54.1 - - 56.4 13.7 81.0May 1993 84.5 57.9 - - 56.1 13.0 65.5Oct 1993 92.6 68.0 - - 67.0 26.4 72.9Apr 1994 90.0 66.2 - - 62.5 30.4 76.0Oct 1994 100.7 69.7 - - 73.6 33.6 89.5May 1995 83.6 60.2 - - 54.3 19.7 69.5Nov 1997 93.6 (2) 88.6 (2) - - 56.1 (2) 15.7 (2) 83.6 (2)Mar 2002 78.1 60.2 67.3 (1) 66.0 (1) 57.7 20.7 96.4Oct 2005 85.9 (3) 63.4 (3) 70.5 (3) 79.3 (3) 62.1 (3) 36.1 (3) 120.2 (3)Mar 2006 71.2 (3) 64.6 (3) 64.1 (3) 67.5 (3) 53.6 (3) 22.3 (3) 111.3 (3)Jan 2007 86.8 70.3 85.9 66.6 54.1 23.9 110.5May 2007 84.7 76.2 86.1 61.9 48.9 27.8 106.9Oct 2007 91.0 85.5 82.7 72.3 54.8 41.1 113.3May 2008 74.5 86.3 93.5 46.8 42.6 21.3 108.8Oct 2008 87.1 87.1 93.5 80.5 57.2 26.4 106.6May 2009 86.1 83.0 97.2 72.2 47.6 25.1 103.2Oct 2009 83.8 85.9 104.1 78.7 59.8 30.7 111.9Notes:(1) Beach profile data generated from TIN model(2) Beach profile data interpolated at 15.24 m (50.0 ft) intervals(3) Beach profile data generated from LIDAR with a TIN model, topography only(4) Mean Sea Level (MSL) lies 0.79 m above NAVD88 datumMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-D. SEDIMENT VOLUME DATAMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportSurveyDateSubaerial Volume (4) (m 3 /m)Transect Designation249+30 311+22 318+30 333+30 350+71 378+29 423+89May 1963 40 (1) 28 (1) 50 (1) 64 (1) 33 (1) 35 (1) 165 (1)Jul 1964 45 (1) 26 (1) 82 (1) 74 (1) - - -Oct 1966 80 (1) 18 (1) 69 (1) 55 (1) 30 (1) 19 (1) 128 (1)Apr 1969 131 (1) 66 (1) 114 (1) 87 (1) 43 (1) 10 (1) 80 (1)May 1973 231 (1) 111 (1) 147 (1) 103 (1) 90 (1) 10 (1) 68 (1)Dec 1978 206 (1) 138 (1) - - 69 (1) 68 (1) 96 (1)Jun 1979 209 (1) 146 (1) - - 96 (1) 24 (1) 131 (1)Apr 1982 217 (1) 151 (1) 179 (1) 139 (1) 77 (1) 12 (1) 189 (1)Jan 1983 227 (1) 137 (1) 179 (1) 140 (1) 72 (1) 20 (1) 156 (1)Feb 1992 246 153 - - 116 1 214May 1992 259 148 - - 107 3 217Nov 1992 262 142 - - 104 1 224May 1993 246 151 - - 110 1 195Oct 1993 245 153 - - 119 9 198Apr 1994 253 170 - - 113 10 212Oct 1994 250 173 - - 124 14 219May 1995 244 155 - - 107 7 194Nov 1997 233 (2) 294 (2) - - 98 (2) 2 (2) 220 (2)Mar 2002 206 181 217 (1) 211 (1) 130 11 277Oct 2005 214 (3) 173 (3) 199 (3) 221 (3) 100 (3) 30 (3) 326 (3)Mar 2006 200 (3) 172 (3) 200 (3) 241 (3) 113 (3) 9 (3) 346 (3)Jan 2007 226 211 268 257 113 16 343May 2007 237 221 276 234 101 21 338Oct 2007 252 235 264 232 97 38 361May 2008 214 259 311 186 81 12 342Oct 2008 233 258 305 210 84 12 341May 2009 232 252 317 296 80 19 333Oct 2009 245 241 328 293 96 25 343Notes:(1) Beach profile data generated from TIN model(2) Beach profile data interpolated at 15.24 m (50.0 ft) intervals(3) Beach profile data generated from LIDAR with a TIN model, topography only(4)Subaerial volume boundary extends from the back beach to the intersection of thebeach profile and Mean Sea Level (MSL). MSL lies 0.79 m above NAVD88 datumMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 249+30400350Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Subaerial Volume (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 311+22400350Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Subaerial Volume (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 318+30400350Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Subaerial Volume (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 333+30400350Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Subaerial Volume (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 350+71400350Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Subaerial Volume (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 378+29400350Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Subaerial Volume (m 3 /m)30025020015010050= Surfside-Sunset Nourishment01960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012YearMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 423+89400350Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Subaerial Volume (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2008 Annual ReportSurveyDateShorezone Volume (3) (m 3 /m)Transect Designation249+30 311+22 318+30 333+30 350+71 378+29 423+89May 1963 4901 (1) 7556 (1) 7069 (1) 6577 (1) 5191 (1) 3990 (1) 5661 (1)Jul 1964 5166 (1) 7605 (1) 7342 (1) 6848 (1) - - -Oct 1966 4973 (1) 7449 (1) 7182 (1) 6757 (1) 5247 (1) 4162 (1) 5637 (1)Apr 1969 4991 (1) 7384 (1) 7087 (1) 6700 (1) 5530 (1) 4180 (1) 5431 (1)May 1973 5324 (1) 7713 (1) 7324 (1) 6798 (1) 5246 (1) 4068 (1) 5374 (1)Dec 1978 5398 (1) 8067 (1) - - 5388 (1) 4073 (1) 5497 (1)Jun 1979 5411 (1) 7752 (1) - - 5314 (1) 4107 (1) 5448 (1)Apr 1982 5313 (1) 7390 (1) 7051 (1) 6575 (1) 5079 (1) 4021 (1) 5538 (1)Jan 1983 5417 (1) 7686 (1) 7408 (1) 6923 (1) 5355 (1) 4061 (1) 5656 (1)Feb 1992 5385 7293 - - 5231 3697 5528May 1992 5385 7352 - - 5183 3783 5581Nov 1992 5378 7384 - - 5289 3890 5570May 1993 5428 7669 - - 5348 3857 5655Oct 1993 5397 7694 - - 5373 4197 5710Apr 1994 5452 7701 - - 5438 4083 5785Oct 1994 5400 7388 - - 5416 4114 5812May 1995 5439 7630 - - 5376 3925 5772Nov 1997 5437 (2) 7848 (2) - - 5474 (2) 3948 (2) 5886 (2)Mar 2002 5375 7635 7310 (1) 6873 (1) 5323 3937 6022Oct 2005 - - - - - - -Mar 2006 - - - - - - -Jan 2007 5407 8369 8234 7255 5405 4068 6210May 2007 5381 8268 8292 7386 5433 4075 6167Oct 2007 5394 8327 8258 7304 5380 4119 6193May 2008 5347 8186 8026 7105 5285 3923 6157Oct 2008 5355 8216 8075 7268 5316 4062 6175May 2009 5345 8217 8142 7401 5358 4074 6155Oct 2009 5311 8216 8178 7435 5442 4146 6181Notes:(1) Beach profile data generated from TIN model(2) Beach profile data interpolated at 15.24 m (50.0 ft) intervals(3)Shorezone volume boundary extends from the back beach to the statisticalrange of closure. Shorezone volume basement elevation located at -13.83 mNAVD88 (-45.0 ft, MLLW, 1960-1978 tidal datum epoch)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2008 Annual ReportSurveyDateShorezone Volume Change Relative to 1963 Survey (3) (m 3 /m)Transect Designation249+30 311+22 318+30 333+30 350+71 378+29 423+89May 1963 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1)Jul 1964 265 (1) 49 (1) 273 (1) 271 (1) - - -Oct 1966 72 (1) -107 (1) 113 (1) 180 (1) 56 (1) 172 (1) -24 (1)Apr 1969 90 (1) -172 (1) 18 (1) 123 (1) 339 (1) 190 (1) -230 (1)May 1973 423 (1) 157 (1) 255 (1) 221 (1) 55 (1) 78 (1) -287 (1)Dec 1978 497 (1) 511 (1) - - 197 (1) 83 (1) -164 (1)Jun 1979 510 (1) 196 (1) - - 123 (1) 117 (1) -213 (1)Apr 1982 412 (1) -166 (1) -18 (1) -2 (1) -112 (1) 31 (1) -123 (1)Jan 1983 516 (1) 130 (1) 339 (1) 346 (1) 164 (1) 71 (1) -5 (1)Feb 1992 484 -263 - - 40 -293 -133May 1992 484 -204 - - -8 -207 -80Nov 1992 477 -172 - - 98 -100 -91May 1993 527 113 - - 157 -133 -6Oct 1993 496 138 - - 182 207 49Apr 1994 551 145 - - 247 93 124Oct 1994 499 -168 - - 225 124 151May 1995 538 74 - - 185 -65 111Nov 1997 536 (2) 292 (2) - - 283 (2) -42 (2) 225 (2)Mar 2002 474 79 241 (1) 296 (1) 132 -53 361Oct 2005 - - - - - - -Mar 2006 - - - - - - -Jan 2007 506 813 1165 678 214 78 549May 2007 480 712 1223 809 242 85 506Oct 2007 493 771 1189 727 189 129 532May 2008 446 630 957 528 94 -67 496Oct 2008 454 660 1006 691 125 72 514May 2009 444 661 1073 824 167 84 494Oct 2009 410 660 1109 858 251 156 520Notes:(1) Beach profile data generated from TIN model(2) Beach profile data interpolated at 15.24 m (50.0 ft) intervals(3)Shorezone volume boundary extends from the back beach to the statisticalrange of closure. Shorezone volume basement elevation located at -13.83 mNAVD88 (-45.0 ft, MLLW, 1960-1978 tidal datum epoch)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2008 Annual ReportTransect 249+30Shorezone Volume Change Relative to 1963 (m 3 /m)1400120010008006004002000-200-400Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 31960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 311+22Shorezone Volume Change Relative to 1963 (m 3 /m)1400120010008006004002000-200-400Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 31960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 318+30Shorezone Volume Change Relative to 1963 (m 3 /m)1400120010008006004002000-200-400Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 31960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 333+30Shorezone Volume Change Relative to 1963 (m 3 /m)1400120010008006004002000-200-400Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 31960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 350+71Shorezone Volume Change Relative to 1963 (m 3 /m)1400120010008006004002000-200-400Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 31960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 378+29Shorezone Volume Change Relative to 1963 (m 3 /m)1400120010008006004002000-200-400Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 31960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 423+89Shorezone Volume Change Relative to 1963 (m 3 /m)1400120010008006004002000-200-400Stage 1 Stage 4Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10 Stage 113.1 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3 1.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 31960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-E. MSL BEACH WIDTH MEASUREMENTSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 249+30MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008 2009 2010DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 311+22MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008 2009 2010DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 318+30MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008 2009 2010DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 333+30140MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)12010080604020Sand by-passing beach fillDistance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008 2009 2010DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 350+71MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008 2009 2010DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 378+29MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008 2009 2010DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 423+89140MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)1201008060402002007 2008 2009 2010DateDistance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile DataMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-F. US ARMY CORPS BEACH WIDTH MEASUREMENTSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 247+88120Stage 7Stage 8 Stage 9Stage 10 Stage 111.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Stage 121.5 mil m 3100Berm Width (meters)8060402001975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 307+88120Stage 7Stage 8Stage 9Stage 10 Stage 111.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Stage 121.5 mil m 3100Berm Width (meters)8060402001975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2009 Annual ReportTransect 424+44120Stage 7Stage 8Stage 9Stage 10 Stage 111.3 mil m 3 2.0 mil m 3 1.4 mil m 3 1.2 mil m 3 1.7 mil m 3Stage 121.5 mil m 3100Berm Width (meters)8060402001975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.