2007 Annual Monitoring Report (pdf 16MB) - Bolsa Chica Lowlands ...

BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDSRESTORATION PROJECTMonitoring ProgramAnnual Report 2007Monitoring Year 1Prepared for:California State Lands Commission100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 SouthSacramento, CA 95825Prepared by:Merkel & Associates, Inc.5434 Ruffin RoadSan Diego, CA 92123Merkel & Associates, Inc

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectMonitoring ProgramAnnual Report 2007Monitoring Year 1Prepared for:California State Lands Commission100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 SouthSacramento, CA 95825-8202Prepared by:Merkel & Associates5434 Ruffin RoadSan Diego, CA 92123Keith Merkel & Rachel Woodfieldwith:Moffatt & Nichol EngineersCoastal Frontiers Corporation

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive Summary................................................................................................................................ 1Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 9I. Ecological Monitoring Program ..................................................................................................... 141.1. Water Quality Monitoring........................................................................................................... 141.2. Soils/Sediment Monitoring......................................................................................................... 181.3. Vegetation/Habitat Monitoring ................................................................................................... 18Eelgrass and Cordgrass Transplant.................................................................................................. 241.4. Fish Community Monitoring....................................................................................................... 261.5. Benthic Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 341.6. Avian Monitoring........................................................................................................................ 35General Avian Monitoring............................................................................................................... 35Light-footed Clapper Rail ................................................................................................................ 48Belding’s Savannah Sparrow Monitoring........................................................................................ 48California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover Monitoring ....................................................... 531.7. Non-native Invasive Species ........................................................................................................ 57II. Physical Monitoring Program ....................................................................................................... 592.1. Inlet Flood Shoal ......................................................................................................................... 592.2. Tidal Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 662.3. Beach Monitoring......................................................................................................................... 72III. Maintenance Dredging Program .................................................................................................. 943.1 Dredging Triggers ......................................................................................................................... 943.2 Trigger Analysis............................................................................................................................ 953.3 Dredge Triggers - Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................ 973.4 Maintenance Dredging Plan .......................................................................................................... 98LIST OF FIGURESFigure 0-1. Site Locator and Vicinity Map............................................................................................ 12Figure 0-2. Schedule of Bolsa Chica monitoring activities and reports. ............................................. 13Figure 1-1. Monitoring Stations. ........................................................................................................... 15Figure 1-2. Water Quality Data. ............................................................................................................ 17Figure 1-3. Habitat map......................................................................................................................... 20Figure 1-4. Cordgrass and Eelgrass Planting Locations........................................................................ 25Figure 1-5. Fisheries sampling stations. ................................................................................................ 27Figure 1-6. Standard length frequency of four fish groups. .................................................................. 31Figure 1-7. Avian survey zones............................................................................................................. 36Figure 1-8. Avian abundance by guild for October and December 2007.............................................. 39Figure 1-9. Avian abundance by habitat for October and December 2007. .......................................... 46Figure 1-10. Belding’s Savannah sparrow territories (April 2007)....................................................... 52Figure 2-1. Predicted Flood Bar Area (cited from M&N 1999)............................................................ 60Figure 2-2. Full Tidal Basin Inlet Bathymetry. ..................................................................................... 62Figure 2-3. Full Tidal Basin Inlet Sediment Accretion and Erosion. .................................................... 63Figure 2-4. Sediment accretion rate per month. .................................................................................... 64Figure 2-5a. Minimum daily tidal elevations in the Bolsa Chica Full Tidal Basin (FTB).................... 68Figure 2-5b. Daily differences in lower low tide elevations between the FTB and the LAOH. ........... 68Figure 2-6. Maximum low tide muting over each monitoring month. ................................................. 69Merkel & Associates, Inc.i

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportBOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTMonitoring ProgramAnnual Report - 2007Monitoring Year 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe construction phases of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project were principally completeby the end of 2006, including the opening of the Full Tidal Basin (FTB) to the ocean in August 2006.The biological and physical monitoring program began in December 2006. While data collected todate represents only one year of sampling since project implementation, some general trends can beidentified and preliminary conclusions can be drawn.As anticipated, natural processes are shaping the system and the first year post-opening has been aperiod of substantial morphologic adjustment as the system seeks an equilibrium state. Shorelines andflats are smoothing while steeper slopes have experienced minor to major erosion. Major areas oferosion and accretion have been identified within the FTB, with the greatest areas of change occurringin areas of flood shoal sandbar formation within the maintenance dredging area near the ocean inletand some slope erosion requiring additional rock stabilization.The delay in opening the Muted Tidal Basins (MTBs) has precluded the beginning of tidal wetlanddevelopment in these areas. As a result, it is expected that the next monitoring year will yieldadditional early developmental conditions as these basins are opened to tidal influence.The biological, physical, and beach monitoring programs reported in this first annual report wereconducted following the Bolsa Chica Lowland Restoration Project Biological Monitoring and FollowupPlan and the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project Beach Monitoring Plan, both prepared bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2001. The monitoring team included Merkel & Associates,Moffat & Nichol Engineers, Coastal Frontiers, and Chambers Group, Inc. The findings aresummarized in the following sections.WATER QUALITYWater quality monitoring was performed in October 2007 using both tended and untended continuousrecording instrumentation to coincide with biological sampling periods. The deployed units wereprogrammed to log water depth (m), temperature (C), dissolved oxygen (DO)(mg/L), turbidity (NTU),and salinity (ppt) at 20-minute intervals from October 10 to November 10, 2007 at two stations withinthe Full Tidal Basin.During the monitoring period mean water temperatures were 18.3C at Station 1 (northernmost stationfurthest from the ocean inlet) and 17.1C at Station 2 (southernnmost station nearer the ocean inlet).Salinity was similar at both stations, with a mean of 33.4 ppt at Station 1 and 33.1 ppt at Station 2. Ingeneral, turbidity at both stations was very similar, with an average reading of about 8 NTU.Dissolved oxygen at Station 1 ranged from 4.7 to 9.5 mg/L, with a mean of 7.0 mg/L. Acceptabledissolved oxygen data at Station 2 were not obtained due to probe fouling or failure.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 1

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe water quality conditions observed in the FTB during this first quarter of monitoring show the tidalmarine influence that now exists in the basin, reflecting the daily and monthly tidal fluctuations seen inthe open ocean. All parameters were well within acceptable ranges to support the developing fish,invertebrate, and vegetation communities, and are indicative of a well-flushed marine environment.No changes are recommended to the water quality monitoring program at this time.VEGETATION/HABITATThe distribution, composition, and evolution of vegetation communities and unvegetated habitats arebeing monitored through the use of aerial photography and quantitative transect methods. The January2007 assessment of habitats at Bolsa Chica mapped eight vegetated and seven non-vegetated habitatswithin the 402-hectare (994-acre) study area. Vegetated habitats included: southern coastal salt marsh,disturbed coastal salt marsh, mule fat scrub, coastal sage scrub, freshwater marsh, southern arroyowillow riparian forest, decaying/transitional vegetation, and non-native vegetation. Non-vegetatedhabitats included: salt panne, disturbed salt panne, intertidal sand shoal, intertidal mudflat, open water,unvegetated nest site, and urban/developed.Cordgrass and eelgrass were transplanted throughout the FTB in August 2007. The cordgrass isanticipated to establish on the broad intertidal mudflats on the eastern shore to the FTB while eelgrassis expected to colonize much of the subtidal areas of the FTB. If patterns of expansion follow thoseobserved in other large-scale restorations, the ultimate expansion from the introduced patches isexpected to be slow at first with much more rapid expansion both vegetatively and through seedlingrecruitment around the third year following initial tidal restoration.The present vegetation monitoring has been used to establish a baseline. The first full vegetationmonitoring event, including aerial photography, habitat mapping, transect surveys, and soil analysis,will be conducted in summer 2008 (Year 2) as called for in the Monitoring Plan.Continued collection of aerial imagery each year (rather than in Years 2, 5, and 10 only) isrecommended, to track changes in water levels, site conditions, and habitat development over time.FISH COMMUNITYFish community sampling was initiated in monitoring Year 2 with the first sampling occurring inOctober 2007. Sampling was performed during daylight hours at three stations: Stations 1 (furthestfrom the ocean) and 2 (closest to the ocean) in the FTB, and one in the Muted Pocket Marsh (MPM).Sampling equipment used included an otter trawl, purse seine, and beach seine in the FTB and a beachseine only in the MPM. Captured fish were identified, counted, measured, and weighed. Physicalwater quality parameters were measured coincident with the fish sampling efforts.A total of 4,426 individual fish were captured in October 2007. The catch represented 18 species offish, from 14 families. At Station 1, a total of 2,185 fish, represented by 15 species, were captured.The mean density across gear types at Station 1 was 0.52 individuals/m 2 . Topsmelt (Atherinopsaffinis) and juvenile anchovy (Anchoa sp.) comprised 95% of the fish captured. At Station 2,considerably fewer fish were captured, with a total of 845 fish represented by 12 species. The meandensity across gear types at Station 2 was 0.19 individuals/m 2 . Topsmelt were again the most abundantfish, accounting for 92% of the total catch. Only three species were captured in the MPM: topsmelt,Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportCalifornia killifish, and a single arrow/shadow goby. A total of 1,396 fish were captured in the MPM,93% of which were topsmelt. Biomass figures at Stations 1 and 2 were more similar than comparisonsof abundance between the two stations and were generally driven by the size and number of topsmeltcaptured. The MPM had the lowest biomass due to the small size of the topsmelt captured there.The limited number of species, low biomass, and few individuals captured is similar to conditionsdocumented in the October 1997 survey during the first year post-opening of Batiquitos Lagoon,reflecting the early stages of site development. In addition, the October 2007 FTB sampling and theOctober 1997 sampling at Batiquitos Lagoon found a paucity of mature fish, with both systemsdominated instead by first year juvenile fish. This observation would tend to suggest that in bothcases, early colonization of the new coastal embayments was by larval and juvenile recruitment andless by adult immigration.It is recommended that fisheries monitoring be extended into Year 3 to document the colonization ofthe FTB and development of the fish community.BENTHIC COMMUNITYThe Monitoring Plan does not call for benthic monitoring to be initiated until Year 2 of the monitoringprogram, in January and July. The first monitoring was conducted January 2008 so data will bepresented in the second annual report.The Monitoring Plan calls only for 2 sampling events in the first four years of the FTB opening. It isrecommended that benthic monitoring be extended into Year 3 in order to better document andunderstand the development of benthic resources available for avian and fish communities.AVIAN COMMUNITYAvian surveys began in October 2007 to mark the start of Year 2 of the monitoring program and willcontinue every other month for a 2-year period. October surveys counted a total of 7,256 individualbirds representing 90 species, while December surveys included a total of 9,333 individual birdsrepresenting 92 species. Many migrating birds were observed in October, with many wintering birdsobserved in December. Each bird species observed was assigned to one of 9 ecological guilds. Themost abundant bird guild for both surveys was shorebirds with 4,406 individuals (61% of all birdsobserved) in October and 5,431 individuals (58% of all birds) in December. The second most abundantguild over both surveys was dabbling ducks/geese with 757 individuals (10% of all birds) in October and1,663 individuals (18% of all birds observed) in December. The large increase in individuals during theDecember surveys can be attributed to the arrival of wintering ducks as well as some migrant geese. Thethird most abundant guild over both surveys was upland birds with 915 individuals (13% of all birds) inOctober and 789 individuals (9% of all birds) in December. Diving duck/grebes/cormorants were thefourth most abundant guild with 371 individuals (5% of all birds) in October and 785 individuals (8% of allbirds) in December 2007.Inundated salt panne was the most utilized habitat type (35% of all birds) during the October 2007survey. This is primarily due to shorebird usage, accounting for 68% of all shorebirds during theOctober survey. This changed in the December survey with an increased use of mudflats (33% of allbirds) and open water (29%) above inundated salt panne (13%). The increased use of open water wasrelated to the arrival of diving and dabbling ducks by December. When standardized by the availableMerkel & Associates, Inc. 3

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportarea of each habitat, bird densities were greatest in October in the willow/riparian (87 birds/ha), nonnativevegetation (53 birds/ha), all salt panne (35 birds/ha), disturbed salt marsh (33 birds/ha), andmudflat (35 birds/ha). In December bird densities were greatest on mudflat (101 birds/ha), freshwatermarsh (56 birds/ha), non-native vegetation (52 birds/ha), and willow/riparian (44 birds/ha).Species richness was highest in October in the salt marsh (38 species), inundated salt panne (33species), mudflat (30 species) and open water (29 species). In December species richness was greatestin open water (43 species), mudflat (42 species), and salt marsh (38 species). All other habitats had 20species or less during both periods.Surveys for the state endangered Belding's Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi)were performed in April 2007. A total of 351 territories were identified within the study site.Territories appeared to be relatively evenly dispersed throughout areas where pickleweed dominatedsalt marsh occurred. Using area of salt marsh available and the number of territories recorded, theaverage territory size was estimated to be 1,450 m 2 . The Future Full Tidal Basin supported the mostterritories, followed by the Muted Tidal Basins, then Seasonal Ponds.California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) 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). The ternsnested on STI and NS1 and did not utilize NTI, NS2, or NS3. From an estimated number of 212 pairs,a total of 392 eggs were laid in 226 nests. The average clutch size was 1.7 and the first least ternfledgling was recorded on 2 July. Nest predation was high at 65 nests (31%) and fledgling success forthe 2007 season was limited to 15 fledglings (3.8%). Ninety-five percent of documented mortality wasdue to depredation (175 chicks and 65 eggs).The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) nested on STI, NS1, NS3, and a numberof cells within the Seasonal Ponds, with a total of 50 nests. From the 143 total eggs produced, 130chicks were produced. None of the 50 nest attempts were lost to predators, however, 2 completeclutches failed to hatch. Of these 130 total chicks produced in 2007, a maximum of 25 chicks (19.2%)were estimated to have survived to fledge. Fledglings per nest (0.50 fledglings/nest) ranked the lowestout of 10 years of fledgling estimates. One hundred five chicks were most likely lost to predation.Management of the California least tern and western snowy plover nesting sites is expected to beadaptive due to enhancement of the Bolsa Chica area and the creation of new nesting and foragingareas.Avian monitoring recommendations include increasing the Belding’s Savannah sparrow monitoringprogram to include a minimum of 2 surveys per breeding season, and implementation of themanagement recommendations detailed in the plover and tern reports attached as appendices to thisreport.INLET FLOOD SHOALThe rate and distribution of sand accretion in the inlet flood shoal maintenance area of the FTB wasassessed during three surveys in the first year: January 19 and June 27, 2007 and January 10, 2008.The flood shoal volume deposited during the first year, August 2006 through August 2007, wasapproximately 169,500 m 3 (222,000 y 3 ). The actual shoaling rate is 34% higher than the 126,200 m 3(165,000 y 3 ) predicted by modeling as the first year shoal volume. The second year shoaling rate fromMerkel & Associates, Inc. 4

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportexceeded the predicted muting following shoal development. Interestingly, the phase lags are alsogreater than anticipated in design. There has been a gradually increasing degree of muting over time,with variable rates of muting – likely coincident with significant drainage restriction by the floodshoal.No changes are recommended to the tidal monitoring program.BEACH MONITORINGHistorically, the beaches along the Bolsa Chica study area have benefited as the downdrift recipient ofthe Surfside-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 to 71 m within the present studyarea. The only occurrence of shoreline retreat during the 34-yr period was a loss of 18 m at a transectlocated at Huntington Cliffs. The volume of sand above MSL increased in parallel to the beach widthchanges during the period. The shorezone volumes in the study area, which incorporate the sedimentchanges further offshore, increased at all of the sites. The greatest gains typically occurred prior to1978.During the two-year period encompassing the construction of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands RestorationProject (October 2005 to August 2007), the shoreline advanced at the three transects located north ofthe entrance channel, with the greatest gain being 22 m. Shoreline retreat predominated at the surveysites located south of the entrance channel, with losses of approximately 7 m of beach width. Thesubaerial volume (sand above MSL) changes north of the channel were very similar to the beach widthchanges. In contrast to the predominance of shoreline retreat south of the entrance channel, subaerialvolume loss occurred at only one transect in this region. This apparent discrepancy immediately southof the entrance channel can be explained by the conservation of the project beach nourishment materialplaced landward of the berm despite the loss of beach width. While it is not possible to quantitativelyassess shorezone volume changes during the recent two-year period (the October 2005 profile does notextend below the waterline), the beach profiles at three sites near new inlet show volume gainsattributable to ebb bar pre-filling during project construction. Despite the overall volume gains locally,particular attention is warranted in the region south of the entrance during future monitoring activitiesbecause minor shoreline retreat did occur in this area during the period.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). While a smallfraction of this material may have resulted from redistribution of basin sediments or aeolian processes,nearly all of the sediment has entered the basin from the ocean. It is probable that the high shoalingrate is a transient effect attributable to inlet stabilization; drawing locally from the pre-filled ebb barand widened beaches adjacent to the inlet. Nevertheless, the shoaling rate is on the same order ofmagnitude as the alongshore sediment transport rates previously developed for Orange County(estimated to range from 108,000 m 3 /y to 125,000 m 3 /y). As a result, particular attention is warrantedin monitoring the flood shoal accumulation rates and beach profile changes over time.In the event that trapping rates detected during the initial post-opening are not transitory, these ratesare of a significant magnitude to be of major concern to alongshore transport in the littoral cell. If leftunchecked and unmanaged, the primary implication of a substantial reduction of the alongshoresediment supply is shoreline erosion downdrift of the entrance channel. The Bolsa Chica project,Merkel & Associates, Inc. 6

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reporthowever, incorporates two sand management measures to actively address the potential for downdrifterosion by eliminating or substantially reducing the net long-term loss of sand downcoast. Tocompensate for anticipated short-term sediment losses from the littoral budget due to the naturalformation of an ebb bar, initial lagoon shoaling, and fillet formation along the jetties, the ebb barlocated offshore of the entrance channel was pre-filled, and supplemental sand was placed as beachnourishment adjacent to the channel at the time of construction. These pre-fills were intended tominimize littoral sand loss to ebb bar formation and provide supplemental sand for early inletstabilization. In addition, the long-term project sediment management plan provides for periodicdown-coast beach nourishment using sediment derived from the FTB during maintenance dredgingoperations, restoring the sediment lost from the littoral budget to the downdrift beaches.MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND DREDGING TRIGGERSParameters of tidal muting, beach width, loss of subtidal habitat, closure risk, muted tidal basinfunction, and water quality were analyzed to evaluate the functioning of the system and determinewhen dredging should be performed. Some of these parameters have pre-established triggers includingtidal muting, beach width, and loss of subtidal habitat. Other parameters do not presently haveestablished criteria for triggering a dredging event.In reviewing the established dredging triggers, it is clear that some of the triggers may never be metexcept under extreme circumstances, while more significant triggers may exist that have not as yetbeen quantified. Chronic beach erosion triggers are not likely to be met because of the ongoingreplenishment at Surfside-Sunset and the program’s effect on long-term beach growth trends.Similarly, acute erosion triggers are not likely to be met due to the generally broad beach profiles attrigger point transects. This is not to say that beaches would not benefit from replenishment with floodshoal sand bypass. Rather, it acknowledges that beach erosion is not likely to occur to the extent thatwould trigger an obligatory maintenance-dredging event for replenishment purposes. It is more likelythat maintenance dredging will be required to address an intrinsic system need related to thefunctionality of the MTB tidal control structures. These triggers will need to be set once the MTBs areopen to the FTB.At the present time, the following preliminary recommendations are made. Additional adjustments todredging triggers are anticipated in response to future performance analysis of the MTBs andadditional analysis of shoaling after the first maintenance dredging cycle is completed.Modify the expectations of tidal range from 2.75 meters (9.0 feet) to 2.29 meters (7.5 feet), withrevised expected tidal elevations of 2.02 meters (6.62 feet) to -0.27 meters (-0.88 feet) relative toNAVD.Remove the dredge trigger of the Mean Low Tide muting of 0.152 meters (0.5 feet). Monitor tidesin the MTBs to clarify maintenance dredging triggers related to tides in those areas.Continue the tidal monitoring program with frequent reporting to show effects of the firstmaintenance-dredging event and to assess the relationship between flood bar shoaling and tidalmuting.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 7

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportRemove the flood shoal in Fall 2008 as scheduled since effects of the flood shoal impede the tidalebbing from the entire site.The beach width dredging trigger should be modified to reflect a more current set of beach widthdata that includes the effects of the 2002 Surfside-Sunset nourishment. In addition, the triggershould indicate that dredging should be performed when the beach width is less than two standarddeviations from the mean beach width, since being greater than two standard deviations does notindicate a need for dredging.Consider modifying the dredge trigger of habitat loss to be 24% as estimated in the preliminaryengineering studies (M&N, 1999) rather than 10% as specified in the Basis of Design Report.Consider dredging to the permitted depth of the final engineering design depths to extend theperiod between maintenance events. Dredging at the time of construction was not completed tofull design depths within the maintenance basin.Continue bathymetric monitoring, and anticipate another maintenance dredging event in two years.Flood shoaling has occurred within the FTB at a two-year rate that is nearly precisely as predicted witha greater rate of shoaling in Year 1 and a lesser rate of shoaling in Year 2 than expected. The shoalgeometry is also generally as expected. The scheduled maintenance dredging is expected to removethe volume predicted at the frequency planned. For this reason, there is no reason not proceed with themaintenance dredging as scheduled.The first scheduled maintenance-dredging event is anticipated to remove approximately 300,000 cy ofsand from the flood shoal and bypass this material to the down coast beach. Dredging mobilization isscheduled to occur in September 2008 with a completion prior to March 15, 2009.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 8

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDThe Bolsa Chica Lowlands are located in Orange County, California, between Bolsa Chica Mesa onthe northwest and Huntington Beach on the southeast (Figure 0-1). In 1996, eight state and federalagencies entered into an agreement to conduct wetland acquisition and restoration at the Lowlands.Following project planning, land purchase, restoration design, permit acquisition, and publication of aFinal Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report, restoration constructionbegan October 6, 2004. The project involved the creation of a Full Tidal Basin and restoration ofMuted Tidal Basins by constructing an ocean inlet north of Huntington Mesa.To create the Full Tidal Basin, approximately 1.57 million m 3 of material were excavated from withinthe Bolsa 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 (102,500m 3 , divided evenly to the north and south of the future inlet) as well as placed offshore from November2005 to May 2006 to form an ebb bar (929,326 m 3 ) outside of the future inlet. Approximately 531,354m 3 of material was placed to form the basin levees and three nesting areas. Remaining material washauled off-site. Jetties were constructed to form the ocean inlet to the basin from March through Juneof 2006.The Full Tidal Basin was opened to the ocean on August 24, 2006. The basin was designed to support71.0 hectares (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. In order to keep the inlet open, maintenance dredging is anticipated to beneeded on a biennial basis, with dredged sand to be placed on down-coast beaches.Water control structures and culverts through the levee were installed to allow regular but muted tidalinfluence from the Full Tidal Basin to three Muted Tidal Basins (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 Muted Tidal Basins were notopened to the Full Tidal Basin during the first year of the monitoring program, though all arescheduled to be opened in 2008. The restoration project involved no changes to the Future Full TidalBasin, which is currently an active oil production field, or the Seasonal Ponds (Figure 0-1).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 and WildlifeService in 2001 (Monitoring Plan)(USFWS, 2001a). The Monitoring Plan notes that the purpose ofthe monitoring program is to document the habitat improvements for fish and wildlife, the success ofrevegetation efforts, and the use of the site by endangered species. Additional monitoring elements inthe Monitoring Plan are intended to insure that the inlet is properly maintained, constructed nestingareas have adequate maintenance, any impacts to sensitive plant species are offset, and thatconstruction impacts to Belding’s Savannah sparrow are minimized.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 9

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe Plan identifies the ecological monitoring objectives as follows: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 biological development ofthe restored area; andAssist in providing a technical basis for resource management of the restored wetland bydocumenting maintenance needs and enhancement opportunities.The plan calls for biological monitoring to be conducted during the 2nd, 5th, and 10th years aftercompletion of construction. Listed species will be monitored each year. Physical monitoring will beconducted in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10.Immediately west of the Lowlands is Bolsa Bay, which was established as an Ecological Reserve in1973 to be managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (Figure 0-1). On August24, 2006, the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project acreage and the Muted Pocket Marsh wereincorporated into the Ecological Reserve by agreement of the State Lands Commission and CDFG.This monitoring program study boundary includes only the restored Lowlands and Muted PocketMarsh, not Bolsa Bay, with the exception that California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plovermonitoring was conducted throughout the Ecological Reserve (Restoration Area and Inner Bolsa).The Beach Monitoring for this program conforms to the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectBeach Monitoring Plan (USFWS, 2001b). The Beach Monitoring Plan defines monitoring activitiesand analyses that are expected to assure restoration project-related adverse impacts to area beaches aremitigated.The State Lands Commission contracted Merkel & Associates, Inc. (M&A) and its team to implementthe first three years of the Biological and Beach Monitoring Plans. The monitoring team includedMerkel & Associates, Moffat & Nichol Engineers, Coastal Frontiers, and Chambers Group, Inc. TheFull Tidal Basin was opened to the ocean on August 24, 2006, with additional remedial constructionactivities continuing to address various shoreline stabilization issues. Contracting was not in place toinitiate immediate monitoring until late 2006. However the year 2 biological monitoring was initiatedon schedule in Fall 2007. To simplify the reporting process, the annual monitoring reports will beprepared by calendar year, but will include data collected by monitoring year, which is based on aschedule starting in October 2006. Therefore this first monitoring report includes all data collectedfrom November 2006 through December 2007. It captures all monitoring conducted under Year 1 ofthe monitoring program (October 2006 to September 2007), as well as the first quarter of Year 2(October to December 2007). A schedule of monitoring activities and reporting is presented forclarification (Figure 0-2).This document serves as the annual report for 2007. It is organized to follow the organization of theBolsa Chica Lowland Restoration Project Biological Monitoring and Follow-up Plan and is dividedinto three primary sections: Ecological Monitoring, Physical Monitoring, and Dredging Analysis. Thedata included in this report supersede all previously distributed interim data reports, the draft annualreport, and any working analyses of these data sets.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 10

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportIn additional to the schedule in Figure 0-2, a table summarizing the dates of each field event during2007 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 Lower LowWater (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 Mean Sea Level(MSL; NOS, 2007).Horizontally geo-referenced data are in meters relative to California State Plane Zone 6, NorthAmerican Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).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 Chica Lowlandsand surroundings labeled with place names to assist in following discussions that are geographicallyreferenced 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)Muted Tidal Basin MTB Area: 76.6 ha (189.3 ac) (not joined to FTB)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 flow into and out of MTBsMerkel & 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 ProjectOrange County, CAFigure 0-1Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure 0-2. Schedule of Bolsa Chica monitoring activities and reports. Note: Breaks in task numbering reflect analytical or administrative tasks thathave not been shown.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 13

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportI. ECOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAMThe ecological monitoring stations were established using direction provided in the Bolsa ChicaLowland Restoration Project Biological Monitoring and Follow-up Plan, as well as observations madein the field at the time of station determination. Figure 1-1 presents the general sampling locations forwater quality, benthic infauna, fish, and birds. Appendix 1-A summarizes the dates of each field event.Within each of the following sections, more detailed maps of sampling locations are presented asneeded.1.1. WATER QUALITY MONITORINGThe development of new habitats in the FTB and MTBs after construction will be influenced by manyfactors, including water quality. Quarterly monitoring has been designed to document both the waterquality conditions at the time of biological monitoring events, as well as longer-term conditionsthrough the use of untended, deployed instruments that collect continuous data. The Monitoring Plancalls for water quality monitoring to be initiated in Year 2 of the monitoring. Therefore, monitoringwas only conducted during October 2007 (first quarter of Year 2).MethodologyDuring 2007, water quality data were collected in the FTB only, as the MTBs were not yet open totidal influence. Hydrolab Datasonde 5 water quality instruments were deployed at two stations withinthe FTB: Station 1 and Station 2 (Figure 1-1). The station coordinates are provided in Appendix 1-B.These locations were positioned to correspond to the general location of fisheries and benthicinvertebrate monitoring. The units were calibrated in accordance with manufacturer specifications andprogrammed to log water depth (m), temperature (C), dissolved oxygen (DO)(mg/L), turbidity (NTU),and salinity (ppt) at 20-minute intervals. The units were mounted to weighted boards and deployed inthe FTB from October 10 to November 10, 2007. The depths at water quality Stations 1 and 2 areapproximately –1.2m and –1.3m NAVD88, respectively.Following data collection, the retrieved units were placed in calibration solutions and re-checked foraccuracy. A technician downloaded the units and transferred the data to the project database forreview and analysis. The data were reviewed to detect and remove spurious data points that may haveresulted from algal fouling of probes, signal decay from sediment loading or biotic activities, or thatwere out of the range of the capability of the unit. Accepted data were plotted graphically, numericallyanalyzed, and reviewed to generate summary statistics.ResultsWhen the units were retrieved from both stations, it was noted that invertebrates and fish had heavilycolonized them. Both units were occupied by two-spot octopus (Octopus bimaculoides) and juvenilekelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus). As anticipated, the collected data reflected the interference thatoften results from intermittent animal activity around the sensor probes. Particularly affected were twooptically detected parameters: dissolved oxygen at Station 2 and turbidity at both stations. Additionalwater quality data collected with a tended unit during fish sampling was used to understand theconditions during periods of data loss from the untended units.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 14

MutedPocket MarshSTATION 1wq1STATION 3(benthic only)TidalMonitoringStationEast WaterControl Structurewq2STATION 2Water Quality StationsInlet Bathymetric MonitoringAvian and Vegetation Study Boundary0 100 200 400 600 800MetersMonitoring StationsBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectOrange County, CAFigure 1-1Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe collected water quality data are presented in Figure 1-2. During the one-month period beginningon October 10, 2007, temperature ranged from 14.3 to 20.4C at Station 1 and from 14.4 to 19.2C atStation 2, with a mean temperature of 18.3 and 17.1C at the two stations, respectively. Salinity wassimilar at both stations, with a mean of 33.4 ppt at Station 1 and 33.1 ppt at Station 2. The turbiditydata showed considerably more noise than would be expected, and it is believed that animals or driftalgae regularly passing near the optical sensor likely caused the erratic data. In general, turbidity atboth stations was very similar, with an average reading of about 8 NTU. Quality control readingstaken at time of deployment, retrieval, and mid-way through the logging period generally measured aturbidity between 4 and 12 NTU. Dissolved oxygen at Station 1 ranged from 4.7 to 9.5 mg/L, with amean of 7.0 mg/L. Dissolved oxygen data at Station 2 was not acceptable due to a steady decay insignal over the life of the deployment, again possibly related to probe fouling. However, pointsampling using tended instrumentation indicates DO levels to be comparable to those found at Station1 for the roughly the same sampling periods.DiscussionThe water quality conditions observed in the FTB during this first quarter of monitoring show the tidalmarine influence that now exists in the basin, reflecting the daily and monthly tidal fluctuations seen inthe open ocean. All parameters were well within acceptable ranges to support the developing fish,invertebrate, and vegetation communities, and are indicative of a well-flushed marine environment.The temperature data reflect the effects of solar heating and atmospheric cooling within the shallowFTB. In warmer months, there may be a stronger south to north gradient with the warmesttemperatures occurring at Station 1 at the north end of the basin, while the better-flushing southern endof the basin would be influenced by cooler oceanic water, maintaining lower temperatures during thesummer months.Dissolved oxygen concentrations in water are determined by a number of factors including: productionthrough photosynthesis, atmospheric gas exchange, oxygen consumption through biochemical oxygendemand and chemical oxygen demand, and saturation capacity as dictated by temperature, salinity, andbarometric pressure. Dissolved oxygen levels measured at Bolsa Chica were within the expected rangeand reflected the strong influence of diurnal tidal flow commonly seen in coastal bays and estuaries. Itis not uncommon for DO readings to rise and fall with tides as water masses with differing physicaland biotic conditions are exchanged. Future monitoring will help detect any unhealthy drops in DOduring warmer months, although this is not anticipated within the FTB, provided the ocean inlet isproperly maintained to provide tidal circulation throughout the basin.The absence of significant freshwater input into the FTB was evident in the salinity data, which closelyreflected oceanic salinities. Slightly higher salinities at Station 1 than at Station 2 are likely the resultof higher evaporation rates and greater residence time in the slightly shallower and warmer innerportions of the FTB. Future data collected in summer months will help explore this further and theaddition of the MTBs to the system will undoubtedly influence salinity levels.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 16

22Temperature35Salinity2134.520341933.5Temperature (C)181716Salinity (ppt)3332.5321514Station 1 (North)Station 2 (South)31.531Station 1 (North)Station 2 (South)1330.51213:00:00 4:40:00 20:20:00 12:00:00 3:40:00 19:20:00 11:00:00 2:40:00 18:20:0010/10/2007 10/13/2007 10/15/2007 10/18/2007 10/21/2007 10/23/2007 10/26/2007 10/29/2007 10/31/200710:00:0011/3/20071:40:0011/6/200717:20:0011/8/20073013:00:00 6:20:00 23:40:00 17:00:00 10:20:00 3:40:00 21:00:00 14:20:0010/10/2007 10/13/2007 10/15/2007 10/18/2007 10/21/2007 10/24/2007 10/26/2007 10/29/20077:40:0011/1/20071:00:0011/4/200718:20:0011/6/200711:40:0011/9/2007TurbidityDissolved Oxygen120100Station 1 (North)Station 2 (South)10.59.58.5Station 1 (North)Turbidity (NTU)806040Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.56.55.54.5203.5013:00:00 5:40:00 22:20:00 15:00:00 7:40:00 0:20:00 17:00:00 9:40:0010/10/2007 10/13/2007 10/15/2007 10/18/2007 10/21/2007 10/24/2007 10/26/2007 10/29/20072:20:0011/1/200719:00:0011/3/200711:40:0011/6/20074:20:0011/9/20072.513:00:00 8:20:00 3:40:00 23:00:00 18:20:00 13:40:00 9:00:00 4:20:0010/10/2007 10/13/2007 10/16/2007 10/18/2007 10/21/2007 10/24/2007 10/27/2007 10/30/200723:40:0011/1/200719:00:0011/4/200714:20:0011/7/20079:40:0011/10/2007Water Quality DataBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project Monitoring ProgramFull Tidal BasinOctober 2007Merkel & Associates, Inc.Figure1-2

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Report1.2. SOILS/SEDIMENT MONITORINGThe Monitoring Plan does not call for soils monitoring to be initiated until Year 2 of the monitoringprogram. This monitoring will be conducted concurrently with vegetation monitoring in Summer2008.1.3. VEGETATION/HABITAT MONITORINGIntroductionThe distribution, composition, and evolution of vegetation communities and unvegetated habitats arebeing monitored through the use of aerial photography and quantitative transect methods. In order tofacilitate vegetation mapping, false-color infrared aerial photography is being used. The photographicproducts provide base-maps for ongoing field studies and facilitate vegetation community and habitatassociation classification. The imagery is to be acquired each year during the same seasonal andapproximate tidal conditions to allow for a comparison of any changes that occur within the systemand provide the basis for long-term habitat trend analysis.The Monitoring Plan does not call for vegetation monitoring to be initiated until Year 2 of theprogram. However, a single habitat-mapping event was conducted in Year 1 to capture conditionsshortly after the opening of the FTB to the ocean and to serve as a baseline for monitoring habitatevolution in subsequent years.MethodologyTo map vegetated and non-vegetated habitats, the Bolsa Chica study area was contract flown onJanuary 16, 2007 to photograph the site at a scale of 1:4,800 from true vertical position on 9”x9” falsecolorinfrared (IR) film. This monitoring event was intended to document conditions as close aspossible to the opening of the FTB to the ocean. (Future aerial photography will be conducted in Mayor June 2008, when wetland habitat is most easily distinguished, as it remains green and transpires at ahigh rate, while upland vegetation has begun to senesce, turn brown, and precipitously decline intranspiration rates.) The photos were flown at approximately 1430 hours at a measured FTB tide of–0.1m NAVD88. This allowed photography of as much exposed intertidal habitat as possible.Additionally, a single 1:19,344 true color spot aerial photograph was taken coincident with the IRimagery. This photograph assisted in providing an additional tool for habitat interpretation andmapping as well as serving as a base map for all field monitoring efforts and reporting.Following survey flights, the aerial images were digitally scanned and georeferenced to create a tilemosaic image for interpretive mapping. Once the images were correctly registered to the project site,heads-up digitization of vegetation boundaries was performed to map communities in accordance withCDFG Holland classification codes (Holland, 1986). Additional codes were used as necessary tosupplement the vegetation codes with biologically important marsh zones, non-vegetated communities,and marine habitats that are lacking in the Holland system. These codes followed the NearshoreHabitat Classification system developed for coastal marine mapping (M&A, 2003).The draft digitized habitat maps were printed and taken into the field for ground-truthing. Oncecompleted, the habitat maps were updated and map products and summary statistics of habitat acreageand distribution across the various project components were generated. Future mapping efforts willexamine habitat change relative to spatial and numeric parameters reported here.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 18

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportResultsEight vegetated and seven non-vegetated habitats were mapped within the 402-hectare (994-acre)study area. Vegetated habitats included: southern coastal salt marsh, disturbed coastal salt marsh, mulefat scrub, coastal sage scrub, freshwater marsh, southern arroyo willow riparian forest,decaying/transitional vegetation, and non-native vegetation. Non-vegetated habitats included: saltpanne, disturbed salt panne, intertidal sand shoal, intertidal mudflat, open water, unvegetated nest site,and urban/developed. Figure 1-3 presents the habitats mapped on-site, and Table 1-1 summarizes theacreage of each. The following text describes each habitat in detail.Table 1-1. Area of habitats within the Bolsa Chica study area (January 2007).Habitat Hectares AcresSouthern coastal salt marsh 92.2 227.7Disturbed southern coastal salt marsh* 7.3 18.1Mule fat scrub 0.5 1.3Coastal sage scrub 0.5 1.3Coastal and valley freshwater marsh 2.1 5.3Southern arroyo willow riparian forest 0.3 0.7Decaying/transitional vegetation* 21.7 53.6Non-native vegetation 2.1 5.2Salt panne* 67.4 166.6Disturbed salt panne* 7.3 18.1Intertidal sand shoal* 1.8 4.4Intertidal mudflat* 40.1 99.1Open water 89.3 220.8Unvegetated nest site* 8.4 20.8Urban/developed 61.0 150.7*Additional non-Holland habitat codes used to further break out biologically relevant habitat types.Southern Coastal Salt MarshWhile the majority of the habitat within Bolsa Chica can be considered southern coastal salt marsh,most is not a truly intertidal marsh: one that experiences regular tidal seawater influence. Within themajority of the study site, recognizable zonation of the salt marsh is no longer present due to theabsence of tidal influence. Continuing to persist in these areas are species that are tolerant of highlysaline soils. This relictual marsh is almost entirely composed of large expanses of pickleweed(Sarcocornia pacifica and Arthrocnemum subterminale). The pickleweed quality varies throughout thesite from tall and robust, to short in stature and desiccated. Other common species in the salt marshinclude: salt grass (Distichlis spicata), saltwort (Batis maritima), and alkali heath (Frankenia salina),The majority of this salt marsh habitat is of moderate quality based on its fairly expansive nature andlimited infestation by exotic and upland species. While there is very little plant diversity within thishabitat, such conditions are normal for coastal salt marsh habitats and especially so for non-tidalmarshes that experience hypersaline sediment conditions and the environmental extremes of wet anddry seasons and years.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 19

Habitat TypeCoastal and valley freshwater marshCoastal sage scrubDecaying/transitional vegetationDisturbed salt panneDisturbed southern coastal salt marshIntertidal mudflatIntertidal sand shoalMule fat scrubNon-native vegetationOpen waterSalt panneSouthern arroyo willow riparian forestSouthern coastal salt marshUnvegetated nest siteUrban/developedMonitoring Program Study Boundary0 100 200 400 600 800MetersHabitat Map - January 2007Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectOrange County, CAFigure 1-3Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportDisturbed Southern Coastal Salt MarshThis habitat category was used to distinguish areas ofsouthern coastal salt marsh that are degraded due primarilyto disturbance by heavy equipment and vehicles associatedwith both the construction elements of the restorationprogram and the on-going contamination remediationactivities within the oil field. This category was also usedfor channels that were dug out of the marsh as part of therestoration of the MTBs. These channels remainedunvegetated and are primarily dry due to the delay inopening the MTBs to the FTB. These will be recategorizedin future assessments once the basins are opened to tidal influence.Disturbed coastal salt marsh in the muted tidal basin.Mule Fat ScrubMule fat scrub occurs primarily in the southeast portion of the seasonal ponds, where perennialfreshwater input support several freshwater vegetation communities, and sporadically along the easternboundaries of the study area near other sources of freshwater. This habitat is nearly monotypic mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia).Coastal Sage ScrubBaccharis scrub occurring within the project site is mapped as coastal sage scrub. This habitat iscomposed almost entirely of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and various non-native weeds such asradish (Raphanus sativus) and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Baccharis scrub is a sub-class ofcoastal sage scrub that is generally almost entirely dominated by coyote brush and is typicallyindicative of greater soil disturbance, higher moisture levels, and/or sandier soils. This vegetationoccurs near the more highly disturbed eastern boundary of the study area.Coastal and Valley Freshwater MarshOne small area of coastal and valley freshwater marsh was mapped in the southeast corner of theseasonal ponds. The freshwater marsh is composed primarily of broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia)and narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), with occasional California Bulrush (Scirpus californicus)and prairie bulrush (Scirpus robustus) nearby. This small freshwater marsh persists on the margin ofthe coastal salt marsh due to perennial freshwater input as both surface runoff and groundwaterseepage from adjacent lands.Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian ForestA single mature stand of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) occurs adjacent to the freshwater marsh andmule fat scrub in the southeastern portion of the seasonal ponds. This willow stand is associated withhigh amounts of seepage from the adjacent bluff as well as surface run-off sources.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 21

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportDecaying/Transitional VegetationThis habitat was used to describe transitionalvegetation communities exhibiting theeffects of exposure to regular tidal influencefollowing long periods of freshwaterinfluence or intermittent inundation. Thisincluded the many dead eucalyptus trees thatring the Muted Pocket Marsh and presentlyprovide roosting and perching habitat for avariety of birds. These trees will eventuallydecay and begin to fall into the marsh. Thiscategory was also used to describe nearly allDecaying marsh vegetation at Rabbit Island.of Rabbit Island. Prior to the opening of theFTB to the ocean, Rabbit Island supported upland species at the highest elevations and was ringed bycoastal salt marsh. Following the introduction of tidal influence, which at extreme tide submergesmuch of Rabbit Island, both the upland and salt marsh vegetation began to die. The majority of RabbitIsland is now covered with the standing dead woody stalks of past marsh and upland vegetation. It isanticipated that coastal salt marsh will become established at the mid- to high salt marsh elevations andcordgrass (Spartina foliosa) and mudflats will dominate at the lower marsh elevations.Non-Native VegetationNon-native vegetation was mapped primarily on the eastern boundaries of the study area in associationwith various construction activities and staging areas, as well as residential areas that contributeescaped landscape plantings. Common species include: radish, black mustard, castor-bean (Ricinuscommunis), myoporum (Myoporum laetum), hottentot fig(Carpobrotus edulis), and tumbleweed (Amaranthus albus).Notably, there is little to no occurrence of the highlyinvasive non-natives giant reed (Arundo donax) or pampasgrass (Cortaderia selloana) within the study area.Non-native vegetation and urban/developed areasadjacent to Freeman Creek.The areas immediately adjacent to the levee roadsbordering the marshes often supported a narrow mix ofroadside weeds and a few native species such asgoldenbush (Isocoma menziesii). These areas were notcalled out as a distinct habitat, rather included in either thecoastal salt marsh they were mixed with or theurban/developed road, as appropriate.Salt PanneBroad areas in much of the coastal salt marsh are unvegetated salt panne, particularly in the seasonalpond and future full tidal areas. These areas were historically inundated by seawater management onthe subsided marsh plain. These areas, however, are currently inundated intermittently by freshwater.These low permeability areas collect water during rainy months and dry though evaporation asconditions warm during spring and summer months. This leaves hypersaline conditions that areinhospitable to most marsh plants. Although pickleweed has colonized much of the salt panne areas,the areas lowest in elevation that pool water for long periods, remain unvegetated.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 22

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportDisturbed Salt PanneDue to the use of the salt panne habitat by various migratory birds,including western snowy plovers for nesting, it is relevant to callout large areas of salt panne that are disturbed. Generally, theseareas are previously flat expanses that are traversed by varioustrucks and equipment. When disturbed during wet periods, thisactivity leaves the ground deeply rutted, less desirable to foragingand nesting birds, and of some concern in relation to harboringpests such as mosquitoes longer into the summer season.Disturbed salt panne in the seasonal ponds.Intertidal Sand ShoalThis category refers to the depositional flood shoals that occur inthe FTB inlet. The shoals are composed of unvegetated andunconsolidated sand that can be highly transitory in nature as theyare chronically accreting and reworked by the tides and waves.Inlet shoal October 2007.Intertidal MudflatThis category refers to the unvegetated intertidal mudflats occurring below elevations at whichvascular plant communities occur (typically +0.7 m NAVD88) and the lowest tides. This habitatborders the FTB and portions of the Muted Pocket Marsh. While the cordgrass shelf is above thiselevation it is also considered intertidal mudflat until such time as marsh develops.Open WaterOpen water habitat includes all permanently inundated areas in the FTB and Muted Pocket Marsh, aswell as non-seasonal waters such as Freeman Creek. Standing water in the Seasonal Ponds and FutureFull Tidal Basin (FFTB) areas were mapped as Salt Panne in consideration of their underlying,persistent substrate.Unvegetated Nest SiteThis includes Nest Sites 1, 2, & 3. They are topped with sand and groomed to appeal to targetedsensitive species that nest on such sites.Urban/DevelopedThe areas designated as Urban/Developed are comprised of paved streets, paved and unpaved oil fieldroadways and levee roads, recreational paths, oil pads, or highly disturbed areas adjacent to theresidential neighborhoods or related to oil field operations and contamination remediation.DiscussionThe January 2007 assessment of habitats at Bolsa Chica was intended to document the baselineconditions following the completion of construction. Vegetated habitats targeted by the restorationwill develop in the coming years, including pickleweed-dominated coastal salt marsh, cordgrass, andeelgrass (Zostera marina). Pickleweed marsh in the MTBs will benefit from daily tidal inundationMerkel & Associates, Inc. 23

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportonce the basins are opened to the FTB and is expected to recover at mid-to high-marsh elevationsaround Rabbit Island. Cordgrass and eelgrass were transplanted throughout the FTB in August 2007,as detailed below. The cordgrass is anticipated to establish on the broad intertidal mudflats on theeastern shore to the FTB, as well as in the more protected shorelines of Rabbit Island.The first full vegetation monitoring event, including aerial photography, habitat mapping, transectsurveys, and soil analysis, will be conducted in summer 2008 (Year 2) as called for in the MonitoringPlan.RecommendationsContinued collection of aerial imagery each year (rather than in Years 2, 5, and 10 only) isrecommended, to track changes in water levels, site conditions, and habitat development.Eelgrass and Cordgrass TransplantA transplant of eelgrass and cordgrass was conducted in the FTB from August 11 to 24, 2007.Numerous volunteers came together to accomplish the task. Images from the joint efforts are includedin Appendix 1-C.Donor cordgrass was harvested from upper Newport Bay on August 11 by volunteers from the BolsaChica Ecological Reserve (BCER) and CDFG, mobilized and led by Jeff Stoddard of CDFG.Cordgrass was harvested as plugs with native sediment and was watered daily while awaitingtransplantation. On August 20, BCER volunteers led by M&A harvested additional cordgrass fromupper Newport Bay. Cordgrass was harvested as individual bare-root stems and bundled in dampenedburlap and transported to Bolsa Chica, along with the previously collected plugs. At Bolsa Chica, thebundles were stored in shallow plastic basins and a small amount of seawater (2-5 inches) was placedin each basin for overnight storage.On August 21 and 22, volunteers from the BCER, CDFG, and Orange County Conservation Corps(OCCC) as well as CDFG and M&A staff planted the cordgrass. Cordgrass plugs and bare-rootbundles were transplanted at seven locations in 45x5(m) blocks along the northeastern shore of the fulltidal basin, and at seven sites on the western shore of the basin, including Rabbit Island (Figure 1-4).A total of 0.3 hectare (0.7 acre) of cordgrass was transplanted. Based on the establishment andexpansion rates seen in a similar transplant conducted at Batiquitos Lagoon, it is expected that thecordgrass will begin to form continuous patches suitable as habitat within three to four years oftransplant (M&A, 2002).On August 22, volunteers from the National Marine Fisheries Service and M&A divers harvestedeelgrass from the Cabrillo Beach region of the Port of Los Angeles. Harvested eelgrass wastransported to Bolsa Chica and prepared for planting by BCER, CDFG, and OCCC volunteers underM&A direction. The eelgrass was planted by M&A divers in 45x5m blocks from August 22 to 24 atfifteen sites in the full tidal basin (Figure 1-4). A total of 0.4 hectare (0.7 acre) of eelgrass wastransplanted. The eelgrass is expected to expand rapidly both vegetatively and by seed.Development of the cordgrass and eelgrass habitats throughout the study area will be documentedannually as part of the vegetation mapping efforts.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 24

Cordgrass Planting Area (0.7 acres)Eelgrass Planting Area (0.9 acres)0 100 200 400 600 800MetersCordgrass and Eelgrass Planting LocationsTransplant Conducted August 2007Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectOrange County, CAFigure 1-4Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Report1.4. FISH COMMUNITY MONITORINGIntroductionThe Monitoring Plan calls for fisheries monitoring to be initiated in Year 2 following the opening ofthe FTB to the ocean. The first sampling event of Year 2 was conducted during this reporting period,in October 2007.MethodologyFisheries sampling was conducted during daylight hours on October 16 and November 8, 2007.Accessibility of Bolsa Chica by survey staff due to the October wildfires in the region delayed thesecond sampling day by one week. Sampling was done at three stations: Stations 1 and 2 in the FTBand one in the Muted Pocket Marsh (Figure 1-1). No sampling was done in the MTBs due to the delayin opening them to the tidal influence of the FTB.Sampling equipment used included an otter trawl, purse seine, and beach seine at Stations 1 and 2 anda beach seine only in the Muted Pocket Marsh (MPM). A variety of depth, current, substrate, andexposure conditions exist within each station, each of which encompass large areas. To characterizethe fish communities that utilize the large sampling stations, three replicates hauls were made acrosseach station, using gear as indicated in Figure 1-5.Beach seining at Station 2 in the FTB.The beach seine consists of a 15- m x 1.8-m net with a 1.8-mx 1.8-m x 1.8-m bag in the center. The seine has 1.2-centimeter (cm) mesh in the wings and 0.6-cm mesh in thebag. It was utilized to sample shoreline waters between thebottom and surface at depths of 0 to 1 m. The seine waspositioned parallel to shore between 8 and 31 m from thewater’s edge, depending on bottom contours. The seine washeld in place for 3 minutes and then walked slowly to shore.The otter trawl consists of a 4.6-m trawl with 2-cm mesh in the body and 0.3-cm mesh in the cod end.The otter trawl was deployed at offshore sampling locations using a small vessel traveling between 1.5and 2 knots along 250-m transects. The trawl was used to sample primarily demersal offshore fish atStations 1 and 2 in the FTB. The Otter trawl was not used in the MPM due to the inaccessibility of thesite 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-m mesh in thebag. The purse seine was deployed at offshore sampling locations using a small vessel. This gear wasused to sample adult and juvenile fish species in the water column as well as demersal fish at Stations1 and 2 in the FTB. The purse seine was not used in the MPM due to the inaccessibility of the site byboat.If more than 100 individuals of a species were caught in a replicate of any gear type, a batch samplingprocedure was utilized. First, the standard length and weight was determined for 30 randomly selectedindividuals. Second, the batch weight was determined for 100 additional randomly selectedindividuals. Finally, the batch weight was determined for all of the remaining, uncounted individualscaught in the replicate. The number of uncounted individuals was then estimated using the batchweight of the 100 randomly selected individuals. Samples were worked up in the field and liveindividuals released.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 26

BS PM Rep1BS PM Rep2BS PM Rep3PS1 Rep1BS1 Rep1OT1 Rep1STATION 1OT1 Rep2PS1 Rep2BS1 Rep2BS1 Rep3PS1 Rep3OT1 Rep3OT2 Rep1PS2 Rep1BS2 Rep1OT2 Rep2PS2 Rep2BS2 Rep2STATION 2OT2 Rep3BS2 Rep3PS2 Rep3Beach SeinePurse SeineOtter Trawl0 100 200 400 600 800MetersFisheries Sampling LocationsBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectOrange County, CAFigure 1-5Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportDue to the difficulty of conclusively distinguishing between juvenile arrow goby (Clevelandia ios) andshadow goby (Quietula y-cauda), juvenile gobies that may have belonged to either species wereidentified as "arrow/shadow goby complex". These functionally similar species commonly co-occurand occupy similar niches in the demersal fish community. Adult arrow and shadow gobies and othergobies were identified to the species level. This method is regularly employed in similar fish studies.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 of thesespecies in the lagoon 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 the biologicalsampling described above. A Hydrolab Quanta ® multi-probe, calibrated in accordance withmanufacturer specifications, was used to collect temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and salinitydata. Readings were taken at the bottom and top of the water column.Voucher specimens of any species that were not readily identifiable in the field were collected andpreserved in a 10% buffered formalin/seawater solution and later transferred to 70% ethanol forsubsequent taxonomic analysis in the laboratory. In the lab, the investigator, date of analysis, sampleparameters, and specimen identification were recorded on hard copy data sheets and the specimenstored for future reference.ResultsThe fish and invertebrates captured in the fishing gear are detailed below.FishA total of 18 species of fish, representing 14 families, were captured throughout the study site inOctober 2007 (Table 1-2). The majority of the fish were captured at Station 1, characterizing the fishcommunity at the inner end of the FTB furthest from the ocean. At Station 1, a total of 2,185 fish,represented by 13 species, were captured. The mean density across gear types at Station 1 was 0.52individuals/m 2 . The most abundant species was topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), followed by juvenileanchovy (Anchoa sp.). Together, these two species comprised 95% of the fish captured. The juvenileanchovy were not developed enough to definitively identify them as either deepbody anchovy (Anchoacompressa) or slough anchovy (Anchoa delicatissima). One adult slough anchovy, however, wascaptured in the same haul. California killifish (Fundulus parvipinis) and small kelp bass were capturedalong with a number of juvenile Atherinids. Three California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) were caughtwith the topsmelt, suggesting the juvenile Atherinids were probably either topsmelt or grunion. Thesespecies often occur together during larval and juvenile stages (Ehrlich et al, 1978) and were notdeveloped enough to definitively identify. Thirty-two juvenile striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) werealso captured at Station 1.Other species that were represented in small numbers at Station 1 were: 2 California needlefish(Strongylura exilis), 2 bay pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus), 2 diamond turbot (Hypsopsettaguttulata), and single individual snubnose pipefish (Syngnathus arctus), bay blenny (Hypsoblenniusgentilis), cheekspot goby (Ilypnus gilberti), and California halibut (Paralichthys californicus).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 28

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTable 1-2. Summary of fish abundance (individuals) and density (individuals/m 2 ) (October 2007).PocketStation 1 (North)Station 2 (South)MarshGrand Beach Otter Purse Station 1 Beach Otter Purse Station 2 BeachTotal Seine Trawl Seine Total Seine Trawl Seine Total SeineBat Ray 1 1 1Slough Anchovy 1 1 1Anchoa , Unidentified Juvenile 611 611 611California Needlefish 2 2 2California Killifish 138 34 34 4 4 100California Grunion 13 3 3 10 10Topsmelt 3,534 1,379 80 1,459 708 72 780 1,295Atherinid, Unidentified Juvenile 21 21 21Bay Pipefish 4 2 2 2 2Snubnose Pipefish 1 1 1Kelp Bass 27 13 1 14 4 9 13Salema 9 9 9Shiner Surfperch 1 1 1Striped Mullet 32 2 30 32Bay Blenny 1 1 1Cheekspot Goby 5 1 1 4 4Arrow/Shadow Goby Complex 1 1California Halibut 19 1 1 18 18California Tonguefish 1 1 1Diamond Turbot 4 1 1 2 1 1 2Total Abundance (individuals) 4,426 1,454 2 729 2,185 750 23 72 845 1,396Area Sampled (m 2 ) 776 2,400 1,041 977 2,400 1,041 1,319Density (individuals/m 2 ) 1.87

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTable 1-3. Summary of fish mass (g) and biomass (g/m 2 ) (October 2007).PocketStation 1 (North)Station 2 (South)MarshGrand Beach Otter Purse Station 1 Beach Otter Purse Station 2 BeachTotal (g) Seine Trawl Seine Total Seine Trawl Seine Total SeineBat Ray 341 0 341.0 341.0 0Slough Anchovy 3.8 3.8 3.8 0 0Anchoa , Unidentified Juvenile 92.9 92.9 92.9 0 0California Needlefish 408 408.0 408.0 0 0California Killifish 174.3 60.3 60.3 15.8 15.8 98.2California Grunion 12.8 2.8 2.8 10.0 10.0 0Topsmelt 7,295.7 3,281.6 216.8 3,498.4 2,374.7 230.0 2,604.7 1,192.6Atherinid, Unidentified Juvenile 7 6.7 6.7 0 0Bay Pipefish 2.5 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.6 0Snubnose Pipefish 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0Kelp Bass 40.9 7.5 0.3 7.8 2.0 31.1 33.1 0Salema 22.2 0 22.2 22.2 0Shiner Surfperch 13 0 13.0 13.0 0Striped Mullet 9.9 0.4 9.5 9.9 0 0Bay Blenny 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 0Cheekspot Goby 1 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.8 0Arrow/Shadow Goby Complex 1.3 0 0 1.3California Halibut 89.8 40.0 40.0 49.8 49.8 0California Tonguefish 20.5 0 20.5 20.5 0Diamond Turbot 280.9 9.7 140.0 149.7 1.2 130.0 131.2 0Total Mass (g) 8,817.7 3,368.6 180.0 734.3 4,282.9 2,474.8 537.9 230.0 3,242.7 1,292.1Area Sampled (m 2 ) 776 2,400 1,041 977 2,400 1,041 1,319Biomass (g/m 2 ) 4.34 0.08 0.71 2.53 0.22 0.22 0.98Juvenile anchovy at Station 1.Of all eighteen species captured, the only full sized fish capturedwere California killifish, California needlefish, and topsmelt.Figure 1-6 presents the standard length size class data for fourgroups of fish of interest: California halibut, kelp bass, Atherinids(topsmelt and grunion only), and anchovy (slough andunidentified juveniles). All groups were heavily represented byfish likely less than one year in age. In addition to the very smallhalibut captured, other small juveniles included striped mullet,salema, diamond turbot, bay blenny, and California killifish.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 30

100%California Halibut Size Class Distribution70%Kelp Bass Size Class Distribution80%Station 1Station 260%50%Station 1Station 2% of Fish60%40%% of Fish40%30%20%20%10%0%0-10 21-3041-5061-7081-90101-110121-130141-150161-170181-190201-210221-230241-250261-270281-290Standard Length Size Class (mm)301-310321-330341-350361-370381-390>4010%0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100101-110111-120121-130131-140141-150Standard Length Size Class (mm)151-160161-170171-180181-190>191Atherinid Size Class DistributionAnchovy Size Class Distribution% of Fish60%50%40%30%20%Station 1Station 2Pocket Marsh% of Fish60%50%40%30%20%Station 110%10%0%0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110111-120121-130131-140141-150151-160161-170171-180181-190>1910%0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100Standard Length Size Class (mm)Standard Length Size Class (mm)Standard Length Frequency of Four Fish GroupsFor reference: possible species maximum size: California halibut- 1500mm, kelp bass - 700mm,atherinid (topmelt/grunion)-360mm, anchovy (slough/deepbody)- 165mmBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project Monitoring ProgramOctober 2007Merkel & Associates, Inc.Figure1-6

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportInvertebrate MacrofaunaAll macroinvertebrates captured during fish sampling werecollected, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible,and counted. Arthropod, Chordate, Echinoderm, andMollusk taxa were collected (Table 1-4). Mollusks were themost abundant, with California bubble snail (Bullagouldiana), speckled scallop (Argopecten aequisulcatus),and California horn snail (Cerithidea californica) thedominant species. Navanax (Navanax inermis) werecommonly captured and seen throughout the FTB.Although not captured in large numbers, California sea hare(Aplysia californica) were observed in very high numbers inthe months immediately following the opening of the FTBto the ocean, continuing through the first year. Arthropodswere represented by green shore crab (HemigrapsusNavanax and scallops captured in the otter trawl alongwith turbot.oregonensis), three Xantus’ swimming crabs (Portunus xantusii), and the brown shrimp (Penaeuscalifornicus). Also captured were various ascidians, as well as a single white sea urchin (Lytechinusanamesus).It is important to note the presence of Musculista senhousia in both the FTB and Muted Pocket Marsh,a highly invasive non-native mussel present in many California bays and estuaries.Table 1-4. Counts of macroinvertebrates captured in fishing gear (October 2007).Phylum Taxa Station 1 (North) Station 2 (South)MutedPocketMarshGrandTotalPhylum Arthropoda Portunus xantusii 3 3Hemigrapsus oregonensis 8 1 9Penaeus californicus 33 3 1 37Phylum Chordata Ciona sp. 2 2Order Ascidiacea 1 6 7Phylum Echinodermata Lytechinus anamesus 1 1Phylum Mollusca Aplysia californica 1 1Argopecten ventricosus 32 31 63Bulla gouldiana 1 223 66 290Cerithidea californica 47 47Crepidula fornicata 2 2Kelletia kelleti 1 1Laevicardium substiatum 5 5Musculista senhousia* 1 5 6Mytilus galloprovicialis 1 1 2Nassarius tegula 2 2Navanax inermis 5 5 10Ostrea lurida 1 1* Non-native invasive speciesMerkel & Associates, Inc. 32

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportCoincident Water Quality Data CollectionWater quality data collected during the purse seine and otter trawl sampling on October 16, 2007 areincluded in Table 1-5. These data reflect a snapshot within the full day during which fish werecollected. A broader picture of the water quality conditions during the month of October waspresented previously in Figure 1-2. Only salinity was recorded in the Muted Pocket Marsh: 26.1 ppt.Table 1-5. Water quality during fish sampling (October 16, 2007).ParameterStation 1Station 2Surface Bottom Surface BottomTime 14:10 14:15 15:13 15:15Temp (°C) 19.1 19.1 17.4 17.3DO (mg/L) 7.6 7.7 8.7 8.7Salinity (ppt) 33.1 33.1 32.8 32.8Turbidity (NTU) 4 12 4 3Depth (m) 0.1 2.0 0.1 2.1These parameters all fell well within normal ranges for enclosed bays and estuaries of southernCalifornia during fall months and were reflected by the marine fish or macroinvertebrate communitiessampled at this time.DiscussionIt is somewhat premature to interpret much from the single sampling event completed thus far. It isinteresting to review the October 1997 fish sampling data for the first monitoring for the BatiquitosLagoon Enhancement Project (Merkel & Associates, 2002). At that time the lagoon had been open tothe ocean for approximately 11 months, did not yet support the extensive eelgrass beds it does today,and was similar in depth and tidal influence to Bolsa Chica at two stations. In reviewing these data, itwas found that comparable stations at Batiquitos Lagoon (Stations 3 and Station 4) yielded similardiversity and abundance.Comparison of Station 1 at Bolsa Chica to a similar interior station at Batiquitos Lagoon reveals 13species at Bolsa Chica and 15 at Batiquitos, with much higher densities at Bolsa Chica than Batiquitos(a mean density of 0.51 individuals/m 2 and 0.09 individuals/m 2 at Bolsa Chica and Batiquitos,respectively, standardized for gear type and station). Comparison of Station 2 at Bolsa Chica to asimilar interior station at Batiquitos reveals 12 species at Bolsa Chica and 17 at Batiquitos, withslightly lower densities at Bolsa Chica than Batiquitos (a mean density of 0.19 individuals/m 2 and 0.28individuals/m 2 at Bolsa Chica and Batiquitos, respectively, standardized for gear type and station).This review indicates that the fish diversity and density at Bolsa Chica were similar at this early stageof site development to another restoration project.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 33

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe present October 2007 survey of the FTB found a paucity of mature fish; the system was dominatedby first-year juvenile fish. This observation would tend to suggest that early colonization of the newcoastal embayment was primarily by larval and juvenile recruitment and rather than by adultimmigration. The eggs and larvae of many of the juvenile fish captured are typically found along theopen coast, moving into coastal embayments as juveniles, including California halibut, diamond turbot,kelp bass, and striped mullet (Cailliet, 2000; Emmett et al, 1991; Thomson, 1963). The presence ofsmall juvenile anchovy and atherinids, likely only several months old based on their length, suggestsactive spawning is occurring within the FTB in these species.It can be expected that fish community development will occur through delayed community structuringprocesses (competition, predation, etc.) following pulses in dominance by a few species that were wellrepresented in the pelagic larvae at the time the system became available. Subsequent monitoring willlikely further illuminate patterns of recruitment and fish community development within the basin.The development of eelgrass resources within the FTB will add egg substrate and habitat complexitythat will result in greater fish diversity.Only three species of fish were captured in the Muted Pocket Marsh in October 2007, the majority ofwhich were juvenile topsmelt. At the time of the sampling the water was a deep red, possiblyreflective of an algal bloom, and was lower in salinity than the FTB (26.1 ppt). It is key to note thatthe MPM is not hydrologically connected to the FTB of Bolsa Chica, rather it receives muted tidalinfluence through a water control structure from outer Bolsa Bay, through Huntington Harbour, whichultimately opens to the ocean over 6.5km (4 miles) to the northwest. It is anticipated that futuresampling events may reveal additional species tolerant of lower salinities and limited tidal flushing,however the muted tidal conditions, the water control structure, and the distance from the ocean willlikely limit the diversity and size the fish that ultimately make up the community of the marsh.RecommendationsIt is recommended that fisheries monitoring continue for more than the presently scheduled fourquarters. This will provide for a meaningful assessment of the development of the fish community, aswell as allow for fisheries monitoring in the Muted Tidal Basins, which have not been assessed yet dueto the delay in opening them to tidal influence. Extending the quarterly sampling through Year 3 willhelp to fill the data gap that would occur between the scheduled Year 2 and Year 5 fish sampling. Recommendation: extend fisheries monitoring into Year 3.1.5. BENTHIC MONITORINGThe Monitoring Plan does not call for benthic monitoring to be initiated until Year 2 of the monitoringprogram, in January and July. The first monitoring was conducted January 2008. Data will beincluded in the 2008 (second) annual report. It is recommended that considerable be given toextending the benthic monitoring past Year 2. Only limited understanding of the development of thebenthic community will be gained in the two sampling events scheduled for Year 2. Recommendation: Extend benthic monitoring into Year 3.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 34

506647Full Tidal BasinFuture Full TidalMuted Pocket MarshMuted Tidal BasinsSeasonal Ponds4948466869454241Cordgrass Bench704039386371723029 3119 282014322721332625343735369132224237310122110 100 200 400 600 800MetersAvian ZonesBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectOrange County, CAFigure 1-7Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportBasin) occupy the northeastern section of Bolsa Chica. These zones generally contain less salt panne,with broad expanses of pickleweed that are not yet exposed to tidal influence. The portions of thesezones closest to the residential neighborhoods have an increased amount of weedy species, particularlyZone 47. Zones 68 through 73 are located within the FTB and are subject to full tidal influence. Zone68 (Rabbit Island) is located on the western portion of the site between Inner Bolsa Bay and the FTB.This zone previously had more habitat diversity than most of the other zones, with salt marsh, alkalimarsh, and upland plant species. The introduction of tidal influence in August 2006 has resulted in theinundation of much of Rabbit Island during high spring tides, causing the existing low elevationhabitats to die off as the area transitions into mudflats and low to middle marsh habitats. Zone 69borders Rabbit Island to the east. Zone 71 is the newly created California least tern and western snowyplover nesting site, Nest Site 1. Zone 71 is a relatively unvegetated, sandy strip that gently slopestowards the FTB. The remaining zones include the intertidal mudflat shelf on the eastern shore andopen water bounded by riprap along the shoreline. The Muted Pocket Marsh occurs north of RabbitIsland and is not hydrologically connected to the Bolsa Chica Lowlands; rather is experiences a mutedtidal influence through a restricted tidal inlet leading to Outer Bolsa Bay. This area is shallowintertidal and subtidal with salt marsh at the higher elevations. The northern shore of the Muted PocketMarsh in lined with large eucalyptus trees that died when tidal influence was introduced. The deadtrees that remain provide abundant roosting and perching habitat for multiple bird species that use themarsh.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) wassurveyed primarily by vehicles, with multiple stops to view and record birds with the exception ofZone 68 and 71. The southern and western side of Zone 68 was surveyed by foot along a pedestrianfoot trail. Zone 71, which is a breeding colony for terns and shorebirds, and the Muted Pocket Marshwas surveyed on foot.Birding in the muted tidal basins.Surveys began in October 2007 to mark the start of Year 2 of themonitoring program and will continue every other month for a 2-yearperiod. Surveys were conducted over a two-day period at each surveyinterval in such a way as to minimize the possibility of double-countsbetween the two days. The FTB, Seasonal Ponds, and Muted Pocket Marshwere surveyed the first day, and the FFTB and MTBs surveyed the secondday. The surveys were conducted during a tide low enough to expose themudflat on the eastern shore of the FTB, referred to often as the cordgrassbench, generally within a predicted oceanic tide range of +1.2 to +0.3m (+4to +1 ft) NAVD88. At this tide, the large sand shoals that have formed inthe inlet of the FTB where large numbers of gulls, cormorants, and pelicansloaf in the afternoon were not exposed.October surveys were conducted on October 17 and 18, 2007. December surveys were conducted onDecember 3 and 4, 2007. The tide range during those surveys was+1.2 to +0.3m (+4 to +1 ft)NAVD88. Although logging tide gauges were in place in the FTB to document tidal lag and muting,those data were not available at the time of the survey; therefore predicted oceanic tides were used.The aim was to survey the FTB and Muted Pocket Marsh on a falling tide that exposed the mid- tohigh intertidal flats.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 37

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportEach of five teams, which included 2-3 people (1-2 observers and 1 recorder), was responsible forsurveying an assigned set of zones over each survey day, which extended from approximately 0700 to1200. Team size depended upon complexity of the survey area and general abundance of birds.Multiple observers allowed teams to survey multiple zones at the same time and minimize over-countsassociated with bird movements.The field biologists used both binoculars and spotting scopes to identify and count species. All teamsconducted surveys simultaneously. Data collected included species, number of individuals, activities ofthe birds (foraging, flying, resting, or showing evidence of breeding), and habitats in which the birdsoccurred (open water, nesting site, mud flat, salt marsh, disturbed salt marsh, freshwater marsh, willowriparian, baccharis scrub, salt panne [dry], inundated salt panne, and non-native vegetation). Weatherconditions, including air temperature, wind speed, wind direction, cloud cover, precipitation, and tideheight, were recorded several times during each survey day.Due to the large size of the zones being surveyed, particularly in the FTB, identifications were oftenmade over great distances. When it was not possible to identify a bird to species, due to distance,overhead flight, or a limited view of the bird, a less specific identification was made such asunidentified gull or unidentified swallow. In cases where challenging lighting conditions and longdistances prevented the distinction between two species that are very similar and require closeinspection to identify, the less specific name was used if necessary, i.e. greater and lesser scaup orlong-billed and short-billed dowitchers were identified as unidentified scaup or unidentifieddowitchers.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, individuals that wereobserved on the boundary of a zone or flying from one zone to another were recorded by only oneteam. This was determined by communicating directly with the other team by radio or phone. Ifcontact could not be made, the data were recorded and details noted on the data sheets. At the end ofeach survey, field staff reviewed the data sheets and, if necessary, corrections were made on the datasheets to avoid over-counting of 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 over allsurvey zones and were seen on both survey days. In cases where an over-count is suspected, a note hasbeen made on the reported table of birds observed.All survey data were initially recorded in the field on hard copy data sheets and then transferred in theoffice to digital database files and checked for accuracy. The database was then queried to extractsummary information used to prepare tables and figures. Data will be analyzed further after moremonitoring intervals have occurred to identify spatial and temporal trends in total avian abundance,numbers of species, and patterns of habitat usage, activity, and seasonal variation.Attempts were made to locate results of previous avian monitoring programs within Bolsa Chica forcomparison. Prior western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) reports prepared by theU.S. Fish and Wildlife 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 prior generalMerkel & Associates, Inc. 38

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportavian surveys of the site were not located. Data collected during recent and past Christmas bird countswill be sought and reviewed for comparison in future monitoring reports.ResultsOctober surveys counted a total of 7,256 individual birds representing 90 species, while Decembersurveys included a total of 9,333 individual birds representing 92 species (Tables 1-6 and 1-7).Although the represented species number is similar for the survey periods, there were 28 species thatwere only identified in one of the two survey periods. This change in species is due to the change inseason, with many migrating birds being observed in October and wintering birds observed inDecember. Each bird species observed was assigned to one of 9 ecological guilds (Appendix 1-D).The most abundant bird guild for both surveys was shorebirds with 4,406 individuals (61% of all birdsobserved) in October and 5,431 individuals (58% of all birds) in December (Figure 1-8). The mostnumerous shorebird species was black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola) (1,678 individuals and23% of all species in October and 1,353 individuals and 15% of all species in December). It ispossible that the black-bellied plovers were over-counted in both quarters. The plovers tend to settle asa large flock to forage or loaf, and when disturbed they will split into several smaller flocks anddisperse throughout the FTB, Seasonal Ponds, and Muted Pocket Marsh. Even with careful notetakingand communication between teams, it is not possible to definitively prevent double-counts. It ispossible that the count could as much as double the actual number of black-bellied plovers. Westernsandpiper (Calidris mauri) were also numerous in December, with 1,270 individuals being identified.Other abundant shorebird species included dowitcher (Limnodromus sp.), dunlin (Calidris alpina),semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), willet (Tringa semipalmata) and marbled godwit(Limosa fedoa).6000Number of Individuals5000400030002000October '07December '0710000Aerial FishForagersCoots andRailsDabblingDucks/GeeseDiving Ducks/Grebes/CormorantsGulls Herons Raptors Shorebirds UplandBirdsFigure 1-8. Avian abundance by guild for October and December 2007.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 39

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Report1.6. AVIAN MONITORINGGeneral Avian MonitoringIntroductionThe general avian monitoring program for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project was designedto employ similar methodologies and survey units as those used in previous pre-restoration biologicalsurvey work. The Monitoring Plan calls for avian monitoring to be conducted once per month inmonitoring Year 2, with no monitoring in Years 1 and 3. Review of other long-term avian monitoringprogram data, such as the Batiquitos Lagoon Restoration Long-Term Monitoring Program and the Portof Los Angeles/Port of Long Beach Biological Baseline Study, suggested that such closely spacedmonitoring events do not provide significantly more useful information on avian site-usage thanquarterly or bi-monthly surveys do.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 other month,distributed over a period of two years (monitoring Year 2 and 3), for the same total of 12 surveys. Thisapproach is more likely to detect annual anomalies, capture natural inter-annual variations in avianusage, and better document changes in distribution and site use patterns as the restored site matures.Additionally, it was originally anticipated that by Year 2 the muted tidal basins would be receivingtidal waters. Due to delays in opening the basins to tidal influence, the relictual salt marsh in thebasins had not had a chance to develop significant infaunal communities that would support the arrivalof migratory shorebirds. Extending the avian monitoring over both Years 2 and 3 will allow for thetracking of avian usage both before and after the introduction of tidal influence to these basins, andpresumably the development of conditions attractive to migratory birds. It is anticipated that the basinswill be opened to tidal influence in 2008.Merkel & Associates biologists conducted the avian surveys with assistance from a team of birdersfrom Chambers Group, Inc.MethodologyStudy AreaThe study site at Bolsa Chica was divided into "zones" (differing from "stations" for the fish andbenthic studies) for the general avian surveys (Figure 1-7). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service providedthe initial zone boundaries and numbering. The term zone is interchangeable with the term cell, oftenused at Bolsa Chica when numbering the marsh units bounded by service roads throughout the site.The newly created Full Tidal Basin (FTB) was divided up into new zones as described below.The Seasonal Ponds at the southeastern side of Bolsa Chica are divided into Zones 2 through 13.These zones consist mainly of salt panne with small to extensive expanses of pickleweed, primarilyalong the slightly elevated zone boundaries. Portions are seasonally inundated with fresh to brackishwater. Zones 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 the SeasonalPonds and consist mainly of salt panne and pickleweed, although there are some areas that retain wateryear-round. Zone 36 is primarily a freshwater marsh. Zones 41 through 50 and Zone 66 (Muted TidalMerkel & Associates, Inc. 35

Table 1-6 Avian abundance by zone (October 17 and 18, 2007)FullMutedGrandFull Tidal Basin Tidal Seasonal Ponds Seas.Muted Tidal Basin TidalFuture Full Tidal BasinPocketBasinPondsBasinFFTB MarshSurvey Zone Total 68 69 70 72 73 Total 2 9 10 11 12 13 Total 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 66 Total 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 63 Total TotalAllen's Hummingbird 1 0 0 0 1 1 0American Avocet 147 0 14 51 65 0 1 1 2 80American Coot 282 18 3 21 103 26 129 0 4 10 63 1 45 7 130 2American Crow 60 7 7 1 1 12 6 3 1 18 40 5 5 7American Goldfinch 17 0 0 14 3 17 0 0American Kestrel 7 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 2American Wigeon 215 0 16 98 23 137 0 3 4 7 71Anna's Hummingbird 19 0 1 1 2 4 1 1 8 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 10 0Barn Swallow 19 0 8 2 10 0 4 1 2 7 2Belted Kingfisher 4 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 1Bewick's Wren 1 0 0 1 1 0 0Black Phoebe 11 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 9 0Black Skimmer 46 44 2 46 0 0 0 0Black-bellied Plover* 1678 65 305 668 5 1043 40 15 150 371 5 581 2 2 4 0 50Black-crowned Night Heron 1 0 0 0 0 1Black-necked Stilt 46 1 1 4 15 1 20 0 2 9 11 14Blue-gray gnatcatcher 10 0 0 0 4 1 5 10 0Blue-winged Teal 11 0 0 0 9 9 2Brown Pelican 54 4 2 47 1 54 0 0 0 0Brown-headed Cowbird 1 0 0 0 1 1 0Bufflehead 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Burrowing Owl 1 0 0 1 1 0 0Bushtit 10 0 0 0 5 5 10 0Caspian Tern 4 1 1 3 3 0 0 0Cinnamon Teal 8 0 6 6 0 2 2 0Clark's Grebe 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Cliff Swallow 6 2 2 0 0 2 2 4 0Common Raven 15 0 2 2 0 1 11 1 13 0Common Snipe 1 0 0 1 1 0 0Common Yellowthroat 2 0 0 0 2 2 0Double-crested Cormorant 282 5 1 46 24 162 238 10 9 6 25 4 4 2 3 1 6 9Dunlin 117 5 4 9 1 88 89 0 0 19Eared Grebe 33 3 4 2 6 8 23 3 3 6 0 2 2 4 0Elegant Tern 2 2 2 0 0 0 0European Starling 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0Forster's Tern 80 64 2 2 1 69 0 0 0 11Gadwall 49 0 10 10 0 5 26 8 39 0Great Blue Heron 16 6 1 3 1 11 0 0 1 1 2 3Great Egret 16 9 1 2 12 0 1 1 1 1 2Greater Yellowlegs 13 0 0 0 0 13Great-tailed Grackle 1 0 0 0 1 1 0Green-winged Teal 51 0 51 51 0 0 0Horned Grebe 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0House Finch 102 0 4 1 5 3 8 7 46 64 7 11 10 3 2 33 0House Wren 1 0 0 1 1 0 0Killdeer 117 6 2 1 9 11 5 16 5 5 4 54 68 1 3 1 7 6 1 2 2 23 1Least Sandpiper 111 15 3 18 2 2 0 1 2 4 4 11 80Lesser Goldfinch 11 0 0 5 6 11 0 0Lesser Yellowlegs 4 0 0 0 3 1 4 0Long-billed Curlew 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0Mallard 37 5 5 2 14 16 0 4 6 2 4 16 0Marbled Godwit 270 175 10 15 10 2 212 6 6 0 0 52Marsh Wren 17 0 7 7 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 7 0Mourning Dove 83 0 1 13 1 15 15 1 6 3 25 4 2 8 8 1 2 2 1 11 1 3 43 0Northern Harrier 3 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0

FullMutedGrandFull Tidal Basin Tidal Seasonal Ponds Seas.Muted Tidal Basin TidalFuture Full Tidal BasinPocketBasinPondsBasinFFTB MarshSurvey Zone Total 68 69 70 72 73 Total 2 9 10 11 12 13 Total 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 66 Total 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 63 Total TotalNorthern Pintail 107 0 33 3 20 1 57 0 6 3 9 41Northern Rough-winged Swallo 18 0 1 1 10 4 14 3 3 0Northern Shoveler 279 0 1 2 233 14 250 4 4 3 1 2 2 8 6 3 25 0Osprey* 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Peregrine Falcon 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0Pied-billed Grebe 12 2 2 4 0 0 1 1 7Red Knot 128 82 82 1 19 20 0 0 26Red Phalarope 3 0 0 0 3 3 0Reddish Egret 1 0 0 0 0 1Red-tailed Hawk 1 0 1 1 0 0 0Red-winged Blackbird 9 0 1 1 0 8 8 0Ring-billed Gull 155 4 15 9 3 2 33 3 91 94 1 1 0 27Rock Pigeon 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0Ruddy Duck 35 1 7 8 16 0 0 1 5 10 1 17 2Ruddy Turnstone 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Sanderling 2 2 2 0 0 0 0Savannah Sparrow 170 2 2 6 31 5 42 5 11 16 16 4 5 4 14 8 83 5 5 2 5 2 1 2 12 7 1 42 1Say's Phoebe 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 0Semipalmated Plover 318 0 0 0 3 78 1 236 318 0Snowy Egret 34 23 1 5 29 0 0 0 5Song Sparrow 14 0 2 2 1 1 4 5 9 2Unidentified Dowitcher 186 0 7 44 51 20 20 3 3 3 9 106Unidentified Gnatcatcher 1 0 0 1 1 0 0Unidentified Gull 25 1 7 2 10 4 1 5 1 1 2 6 1 9 0Unidentified Hummingbird 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0Unidentified Sandpiper 445 12 1 7 39 9 68 158 158 0 197 1 11 10 219 0Unidentified Scaup 2 0 0 0 2 2 0Unidentified Sparrow 41 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 8 6 15 2 1 1 34 0Unidentified Swallow 4 0 0 0 1 3 4 0Unidentified Yellowlegs 1 0 1 1 0 0 0Vaux's Swift 43 0 6 6 13 3 1 17 20 20 0Violet-Green Swallow 15 0 12 12 3 3 0 0Western Grebe 3 3 3 0 0 0 0Western Gull 54 26 17 4 1 48 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 0Western Meadowlark 48 0 11 11 1 3 2 5 26 37 0 0Western Sandpiper 495 18 34 52 36 16 242 294 2 2 3 5 11 19 128Whimbrel 8 3 2 1 1 7 0 0 0 1White Pelican 9 1 8 9 0 0 0 0White-crowned Sparrow 127 0 2 2 29 20 4 24 6 5 88 7 15 10 1 33 4White-tailed Kite* 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 0Willet 317 129 12 14 19 6 180 1 20 21 0 2 1 2 2 7 109Yellow-rumped Warbler 15 0 1 3 4 2 2 1 5 3 9 0Grand Total 7256 686 96 513 834 215 2344 109 70 253 1552 169 92 2245 89 78 38 25 42 40 38 173 15 538 21 18 2 46 1 282 2 9 1 26 3 65 15 80 28 10 5 386 39 115 29 16 47 1246 883* Species suspected of overcounting due to multiple sightings that could not be determined as either unique or duplicate.

Table 1-7 Avian abundance by zone (December 3 and 4, 2007)FullMutedGrandFull Tidal Basin Tidal Seasonal Ponds Seas. Muted Tidal Basin TidalFuture Full Tidal BasinPocketBasinPondsBasinFFTB MarshSurvey Zone Total 68 69 70 71 72 73 Total 2 9 10 11 12 13 Total 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 66 Total 14 19 20 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 63 Total TotalAllen's Hummingbird 1 0 1 1 0 0American Avocet 131 80 1 81 0 2 3 5 45American Coot 245 95 4 99 0 12 7 11 36 16 4 86 60American Crow 19 3 3 0 1 1 2 0 14American Goldfinch 1 0 0 1 1 0American Kestrel 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 0American Wigeon 398 2 2 64 41 105 0 61 7 63 15 19 3 168 123Anna's Hummingbird 22 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 8 1 3 2 1 1 8 3Belted Kingfisher 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 1Bewick's Wren 7 0 3 4 7 0 0Black Phoebe 10 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 0Black-bellied Plover* 1353 188 399 557 160 10 1314 34 34 0 1 1 4Black-crowned Night Heron 10 0 0 0 0 10Black-necked Stilt 83 0 21 21 0 59 1 1 61 1Blue-gray gnatcatcher 3 0 0 0 2 1 3 0Blue-winged Teal 41 0 0 2 2 12 2 14 25Brown Pelican 1 0 1 1 0 0 0Bufflehead 86 11 10 8 24 1 54 2 2 4 1 1 2 3 2 3 10 17Burrowing Owl 1 1 1 0 0 0 0California Gull 3 3 3 0 0 0 0Canada Goose 158 0 8 8 11 9 20 11 9 45 65 65Canvasback 1 0 1 1 0 0 0Caspian Tern 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0Cinnamon Teal 6 0 1 1 0 0 5Clark's Grebe 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Common Snipe 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Common Yellowthroat 3 0 0 0 3 3 0Cooper's Hawk 1 0 0 0 1 1 0Double-crested Cormorant 121 5 1 31 20 1 58 4 4 8 16 1 2 1 10 17 31 6 2 4 1 3 16 0Dunlin 508 345 108 12 465 35 35 0 3 3 5Eared Grebe 45 3 11 3 9 26 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 2 3 11 7European Starling 4 0 0 0 3 1 4 0Forster's Tern 28 2 9 2 3 16 0 1 7 8 0 4Gadwall 58 2 2 2 2 22 8 34 0 11 1 7 19 3Great Blue Heron 15 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 2Great Egret 26 4 2 2 8 0 1 7 2 10 1 1 2 6Greater Yellowlegs 20 2 7 1 10 0 0 1 1 2 8Green-winged Teal 151 0 66 66 0 25 1 26 59Horned Grebe 6 2 3 1 6 0 0 0 0House Finch 177 0 5 5 5 12 39 8 5 31 100 2 2 6 4 2 6 43 7 72 0House Wren 2 0 0 2 2 0 0Killdeer 154 6 2 1 9 4 3 7 0 11 3 17 ## 132 6Least Sandpiper 108 30 15 45 2 10 12 1 1 4 10 6 3 10 33 17Lesser Scaup 40 4 4 0 0 0 36Lesser Yellowlegs 1 0 0 0 0 1Loggerhead Shrike 1 0 0 1 1 0 0Long-billed Curlew 23 14 1 6 2 23 0 0 0 0Long-tailed Duck 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Mallard 32 0 2 2 9 6 15 2 3 5 10Marbled Godwit 205 71 69 18 1 159 0 0 0 46Marsh Wren 7 0 6 6 1 1 0 0Mew Gull 4 4 4 0 0 0 0

FullMutedGrandFull Tidal Basin Tidal Seasonal Ponds Seas. Muted Tidal Basin TidalFuture Full Tidal BasinPocketBasinPondsBasinFFTB MarshSurvey Zone Total 68 69 70 71 72 73 Total 2 9 10 11 12 13 Total 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 66 Total 14 19 20 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 63 Total TotalMourning Dove 100 1 1 0 1 4 5 1 3 7 13 65 2 1 1 1 94 0Northern Harrier* 10 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 5 0 2Northern Pintail 468 5 3 70 31 109 1 20 174 195 0 2 11 13 67 9 102 62No. Rough-winged Swallow 2 0 0 0 2 2 0Northern Shoveler 310 0 3 218 4 225 2 2 2 4 6 46 3 13 2 76 7Osprey 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 1Peregrine Falcon 1 0 1 1 0 0 0Pied-billed Grebe 39 8 5 1 1 4 19 0 0 1 1 19Red-breasted Merganser 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 2Reddish Egret 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Redhead 13 1 1 2 0 0 0 11Red-tailed Hawk 3 0 0 0 1 1 2Ring-billed Gull 62 5 7 17 29 0 6 5 2 1 6 1 21 4 1 4 9 3Rock Pigeon 2 0 0 0 2 2 0Ruddy Duck 162 7 6 3 1 1 18 22 8 30 0 5 4 15 2 26 88Ruddy Turnstone 7 2 1 3 1 7 0 0 0 0Sanderling 6 6 6 0 0 0 0Savannah Sparrow 164 2 2 5 20 9 2 1 37 2 3 4 2 8 10 38 67 1 3 17 9 1 4 2 5 4 1 5 4 56 2Say's Phoebe 9 0 1 2 3 0 1 1 2 1 5 1Semipalmated Plover 222 6 43 130 179 23 23 0 20 20 0Short-eared Owl 1 0 0 1 1 0 0Snowy Egret 112 37 3 3 43 0 1 1 40 42 0 27Song Sparrow 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0Surf Scoter 215 5 31 179 215 0 0 0 0Unidentified Dowitcher 832 145 38 3 186 13 13 0 2 2 631Unidentified Duck 1 0 0 0 0 1Unidentified Gull 7 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 0 0Unidentified Sandpiper 177 17 41 40 45 10 153 0 1 1 1 15 16 7Unidentified Scaup 82 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 78Unidentified Sparrow 5 5 5 0 0 0 0Unidentified Swallow 4 0 1 1 0 3 3 0Unidentified Tern 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Unidentified Yellowlegs 146 127 3 6 136 0 1 1 5 2 7 2Vaux's Swift 9 0 8 1 9 0 0 0Western Grebe 9 2 4 3 9 0 0 0 0Western Gull 88 8 18 2 24 12 64 2 5 5 12 2 2 4 1 5 2 8 0Western Kingbird 1 0 0 0 1 1 0Western Meadowlark 15 0 0 1 2 1 4 6 14 0 1Western Sandpiper 1270 83 899 137 12 1131 0 7 7 3 2 11 2 18 114Western Snowy Plover 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0Whimbrel 11 5 3 3 11 0 0 0 0White Pelican 26 2 1 5 8 0 1 5 6 3 1 4 8White-crowned Sparrow 182 0 0 35 4 18 13 37 5 34 146 8 25 33 3White-tailed Kite* 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0Willet 171 103 8 13 17 2 143 1 1 0 1 1 26Wilson's Warbler 1 0 1 1 0 0 0Yellow-rumped Warbler 36 0 5 7 12 1 1 2 14 1 1 3 3 22 0Grand Total 9333 1262 1678 937 5 560 272 4714 15 31 50 905 53 65 1119 55 40 44 23 95 25 91 163 10 546 83 8 1 85 17 3 18 15 1 113 3 246 112 30 105 206 6 136 8 14 63 1273 1681* Species suspected of overcounting due to multiple sightings that could not be determined as either unique or duplicate.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe second most abundant guild over both surveys was dabbling ducks/geese with 757 individuals (10% ofall birds) in October and 1,663 individuals (18% of all birds observed) in December. The large increase inindividuals during the December surveys can be attributed to the arrival of wintering ducks as well as somemigrant geese. The most abundant of the dabbling ducks were northern shoveler (Anas clypeata),American widgeon (Anas americana), and northern pintail (Anas acuta). There was also a large flock(approximately 75 individuals) of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) present during the December survey.The third most abundant guild over both surveys was upland birds with 915 individuals (13% of all birds)in October and 789 individuals (9% of all birds) in December. The most numerous upland species wasSavannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), killdeer(Charadrius vociferous), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).There was an increase in the majority of the most numerous upland birds from October to December,although Savannah sparrow counts remained similar (170 in October and 164 in December). During thesesurveys it was not possible to definitively distinguish behaviorally or by plumage between races ofSavannah sparrows. As the breeding season arrives it will be possible to inventory the state-listedBelding’s Savannah sparrows. The decrease in the overall number of upland birds in December seems tobe due to a decrease in common raven (Corvus corax), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), andwestern meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). There were also fewer swallows and swifts in December 2007as compared to October 2007. Not observed during these surveys, but noted during the April 2007Belding’s Savannah sparrow surveys discussed below, was a yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalusxanthocephalus).Diving ducks/grebes/cormorants were the fourth most abundant guild with 371 individuals (5% of all birds)in October and 785 individuals (8% of all birds) in December 2007. The increased number of winteringdiving ducks such as surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), scaup (Aythya sp.), ruddy duck (Oxyurajamaicensis), and bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) caused the change between the abundance in the twosurveys. Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) decreased in number from 282 in October to121 individuals in December. These birds likely move in and out of the site on a daily basis.The remaining guilds were also represented in the following orderof abundance; coots and rails, gulls, aerial fish forages, herons,and raptors. Raptors are normally lowest in number due to theirposition in the food chain. They are also the most likely to beover-counted due to their mobility and size of their territories.Two owl species were observed during the surveys, represented bya single short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) and two burrowing owls(Athene cunicularia). One burrowing owl occupied a burrow atthe top of the riprap near the inlet, while the other occupied aburrow in Zone 45. This second individual was subsequentlybelieved to have been predated (P. Knapp, pers. comm.).Burrowing Owl in Zone 45.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 44

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAvian Usage of the Survey AreaAssessing the avian usage of Bolsa Chica is complicated due to the frequent movements of the shorebirdsand waterfowl between areas such as the Seasonal Ponds and Full Tidal Basin within and between days.However a general overview of the use of these areas can be provided.Seasonal PondsThe 50-hectare seasonal ponds were utilized by 2,245 and 1,119 individual birds, representing 47 and40 species, during the October and December counts, respectively. The most abundant guilds in theseasonal ponds were shorebirds and dabbling ducks, indicating the importance of the shallow water inthe inundated salt panne for foraging and the exposed salt panne for resting. The seasonal ponds alsosupport considerable expanses of pickleweed that is occupied by Belding’s Savannah sparrows withaffinity to the habitat beginning in the late winter months. Zone 11 is the largest single zone, with themost diverse habitats, and supports the largest number and diversity of birds within the SeasonalPonds.Full Tidal BasinThe 158-hectare FTB is the largest, and was the most highly utilized, portion of the site. A total of2,344 individuals (43 species) during the October count and 4,714 individuals (51 species) during theDecember count were observed in this area. The most abundant guild in the FTB was shorebirds (72%in October and 83% in December). These birds foraged predominantly on the intertidal mudflats alongthe eastern shore of the basin (cordgrass bench) and around Rabbit Island. The inlet of the basin aswell as the open waters further into the basin were used in December by wintering ducks such as surfscoter, northern pintail, and bufflehead. The open water was also highly utilized by aerial fishforagers, particularly terns, during the October survey.Future Full Tidal BasinA total of 1,246 individual birds (55 species) used the 104-hectare FFTB during the October count and1,273 individuals (51 species) used the area during the December. The most abundant guilds in theFFTB were shorebirds and upland birds in October and shorebirds, upland birds, and dabblingducks/geese in December. These zones are dry and highly disturbed in many cases, with lower qualityhabitat and non-native vegetation common throughout this area. The ponded water within Zones 38,63, and 30 was utilized by shorebirds and dabbling ducks. American coots (Fulica americana) are alsovery abundant in this region.Muted Tidal BasinThe 77-hectare MTB was the least utilized of all the survey areas. The basin had 538 individuals (34species) during the October count and 546 individuals (35 species) in December. Upland speciesaccounted for 79% and 65% of these birds, respectively. The most abundant upland species in bothsurveys were white-crowned sparrow, house finch, and Savannah sparrow. All other guilds wererepresented in small numbers with the exception of coots and rails, which did not occur in the mutedtidal basin on either survey.Muted Pocket MarshThe 14 hectare Muted Pocket Marsh is primarily shallow open water and mudflat and therefore highlyutilized by shorebirds, dabbling ducks, and diving ducks/grebes/cormorants. The Muted PocketMarsh had a total of 883 individuals (35 species) during the October count and 1,681 individuals (47Merkel & Associates, Inc. 45

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportspecies) during the December count. The increase in December is largely due to the increase in thenumber of dabbling and diving ducks utilizing the site, along with a large increase in dowitchers (106in October, 631 in December).Avian Distribution and Abundance by Habitat TypeInundated salt panne was the most utilized habitat type (35% of all birds) during the October 2007survey (Figure 1-9). This is primarily due to shorebird usage, accounting for 68% of all shorebirdsduring the October survey. This changed in the December survey with an increased use of mudflats(33% of all birds) and open water (29%) above inundated salt panne (13%). The increased use of openwater was related to the arrival of diving and dabbling ducks by December.50004000October-07December-07Number of Individuals3000200010000SaltMarshDisturbed FreshwaterSalt M arsh MarshWillo w/RiparianSaltPanneInundatedSalt PanneNestSiteOpenWaterRiprap M udflat SandShoalNon-nativeVegetationUrban/DisturbedFigure 1-9. Avian abundance by habitat for October and December 2007.The acreage of these habitats varies greatly (Table 1-1). When standardized by the available area ofeach habitat, bird densities were greatest in October in the willow/riparian (87 birds/ha), non-nativevegetation (53 birds/ha), all salt panne (35 birds/ha), disturbed salt marsh (33 birds/ha), and mudflat(35 birds/ha). In December bird densities were greatest on mudflat (101 birds/ha), freshwater marsh(56 birds/ha), non-native vegetation (52 birds/ha), and willow/riparian (44 birds/ha).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 46

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe heavy usage of the intertidal sand shoals in Zone 73 (inlet) at low tide by gulls, cormorants, terns,and pelicans is not captured by this survey, though observed regularly in the late afternoons 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.Gulls on sand shoal in the Full Tidal Basin.Flying birds were recorded in the habitat over which they were flying at the time of observation,though they may not necessary use that habitat on the ground. To look at species richness, all birdsrecorded as flying were disregarded and only birds on the ground considered. Species richness washighest in October in the salt marsh (38 species), inundated salt panne (33 species), mudflat (30species) and open water (29 species). In December species richness was greatest in open water (43species), mudflat (42 species), and salt marsh (38 species). All other habitats had 20 species or lessduring both periods.DiscussionThere were only two general avian surveys during Year 1: one in October which corresponded withbirds migrating through Bolsa Chica, and one in December which sampled the birds that overwinter atBolsa Chica. The most highly utilized habitats within the study area were inundated salt panne,mudflats, and open water. Shorebirds were the most abundant bird guild.On-going monitoring is expected to illuminate seasonal patterns of use within the system andinterannual variability. With only two surveys in place, interpretation of habitat use patterns remainssomewhat premature, though as would be expected mudflat, salt panne, and open water were heavilyutilized.Diversity within the study area is comparable to diversity observed at Batiquitos Lagoon during longtermmonitoring conducted using similar methods. The October 2007 survey at Bolsa Chica observed90 species. October surveys at Batiquitos Lagoon recorded between 80 to 92 species, with an averageof 88 species. Batiquitos Lagoon is a smaller site (approximately 2/3 the size) and includes morediverse habitats with a more balanced distribution.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 47

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportIt is anticipated that with the future opening of tidal influence to the MTBs, there will be an increase inboth avian abundance and richness associated with habitat changes in these areas. The use of the largeflood bar at the entrance to the FTB, principally by gulls, will diminish with the first maintenancedredging event. This use as a loafing area will be recurrent as the shoal builds prior to each dredgingevent.RecommendationsContinue the general avian monitoring with no changes.Light-footed Clapper RailSurveys for the light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) will not be initiated until 2010, bywhich time it is hoped that suitable cordgrass habitat will have developed to an extent and quality toattract clapper rails.Belding’s Savannah Sparrow MonitoringMethodologySurveys for the state endangered Belding's Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi)were performed on April 9 and 17, 2007. At this time the sparrows were well into their breedingseason and therefore displaying territorial and breeding behavior. All areas with potentially suitablebreeding habitat for the Belding's Savannah sparrow (pickleweed-dominated salt marsh) weresurveyed. There was very limited suitable habitat available in the Full Tidal Basin at the time of thesurvey (the majority of Rabbit Island was submerged). The Muted Pocket March was not included inthis survey, however it will be included in future surveys. The site was surveyed on foot by qualifiedbiologists using binoculars and spotting scopes. Surveys were performed between 0530 hours and1100 hours. Weather conditions including air temperature, cloud cover, precipitation, and approximatewind speed were recorded regularly throughout the survey.The survey program included a calibration training period with Dick Zembal prior to conducting thesurveys so that data collected would be consistent between individuals and in comparison to pastsurveys conducted at the site and statewide survey efforts (Zembal et al, 2006). Surveys will beconducted annually to document changes over time and space. The site was surveyed over a two-dayperiod by assigning each surveyor a series of zones. Each zone was surveyed only once; two dayswere needed to cover all of the zones. The surveys would have been discontinued for the day if wind,visibility, rain, or other factors were deemed to be unsuitable for accurate and effective data collection,including an absence of territorial behavior by the sparrows. No such problems were encounteredduring these surveys. All survey data were initially recorded in the field on hard copy maps of eachzone and then transferred in the office to GIS database files.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 48

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe location of each Belding’s Savannah sparrow territoryobserved was plotted on a map based on the behavior observedwhich included: singing by a perched male, scolding, carryingnesting material or food, feeding young, extended perchingtogether of mates, extended high and fully exposed perching ofindividuals, and territorial defensive behavior demonstrated bycircular chasing of birds from a territory. All behaviors weremarked on the field map of the zone being assessed. At thecompletion of the survey of each zone, the biologist reviewedthe notes, assessed the significance of each behavior noted, andwrote down a tally of the total number of territories assessed inthat zone. Biologists were careful to keep track of birds within azone to avoid over counting territories and did not spend toomuch time in a particular zone to avoid confusion. A figureshowing the highest ranking behavior observed to determine aterritory is presented in Appendix 1-E. For example, if theA territorial male Belding’s Savannah Sparrow.biologist mapped a male as perched for an extended period oftime, but it later began singing, the singing would supersede the perching in making the determinationand the final map would show a single singing male. The ranking of behavior for determining aterritory from most certain to least was: Extended perching of a pair, singing male, territory by chase,and extended exposed perching by a male. At the time of finalization of this document, follow-up fieldwork conducted during the 2008 breeding survey suggested that scolding or chipping were not areliable sign on definitive territories, and were subsequently removed from the enumeration ofterritories.From these breeding and territorial behaviors, the number and approximate locations of territorieswithin each zone were estimated. This method has been used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand California Department of Fish and Game when the scope of the surveys does not include precisedetermination of the number of territories present. This technique has been used for statewide surveys(Zembal et al., 2006). However, a clearly defined, written protocol for surveys of this type does notexist and there will therefore be some unavoidable variation in technique and judgment between surveyprograms.ResultsThe location of the territories estimated by the observed breeding and territorial behaviors is shown inFigure 1-10. A total of 351 territories were identified within the study site. Territories appeared to berelatively evenly dispersed throughout areas where pickleweed dominated salt marsh occurred. Usingarea of salt marsh available and the number of territories recorded within Zones 2-29, the averageterritory size was estimated to be 1,450 m 2 .The Future Full Tidal Basin supported the most territories, followed by the Muted Tidal Basins, thenSeasonal Ponds (Table 1-8). The number of territories did not correlate with the amount of salt marshavailable. The 2006-2007 rain season was notably dry, resulting the majority of the salt marsh areaincluded in the table below remaining dry during the nesting season.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 49

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTable 1-8. Belding’s Savannah Sparrow Territories at Bolsa Chica in 2007.Zone # of Territories Salt Marsh Available (ha)Full Tidal Basin 0

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportSome survey result differences between the Zembal and M&A team could also have arisen from adifference in survey biologists. Without a written protocol it is not possible to have completeconsistency with prior surveys, however by reviewing survey methodology with Mr. Zembal in thefield prior to the survey, it is hoped that survey technique variability was minimized. The presentsurvey team will maintain the above-described methodology for all future surveys.Considerable movement by the birds between zones was noted, particularly with birds leaving toforage on the riprap and mudflat of the FTB, resulting in missed territories. Due to these observationsof great variability, the surveys conducted during Year 2 (prior to the final publication of this report)were conducted twice within the season. Although many individuals were mapped on the sameterritories between surveys, a large number of territories were only observed on one survey or theother, and there were 25% more territories on one date than the other. These results will be detailed inthe next annual report, but a mentioned to illustrate the limitations of the survey methodology, whichcaptures a snapshot in time and only a rough estimate of territories.To address temporal variability in movement and behavior, and to more accurately assess the numberof breeding territories within the site, it is recommended that the survey be conducted at least twiceduring each breeding season.RecommendationsIncrease Belding’s Savannah sparrow survey intensity to a minimum of two events per breedingseason.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 51

Cell # 2 11 10 9 14 13 12 19 20 21 22 23 29 28 27 26 25 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 63 38 39 40 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 66 50 68 69 70 71 72 TOTAL# of Territories 9 37 16 17 14 3 8 12 3 2 1 6 0 1 9 4 5 3 14 2 7 4 9 4 19 0 3 3 10 8 25 13 22 19 2 11 9 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 3515066474948466869454241704039386371723029 3119 28201432272133262534373536913222423731012211Territory0 100 200 400 600 800MetersBelding's Savannah Sparrow Territories - April 2007Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectOrange County, CAFigure 1-10Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportCalifornia Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover MonitoringMethodologyCalifornia least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) 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). NTI andSTI are located in Inner Bolsa Bay, outside of the project survey area, but are included in this report inorder to give a more complete understanding of tern reproductive success at the Bolsa Chica complex.NS1, NS2, and NS3 are newly created nesting islands within the project area; NS1 is in the FTBbetween the FTB and Inner Bolsa Bay, NS2 is located within Zone 42 of the southern MTB, and NS3is located in Zone 14 of the FFTB. Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) nestsites included all tern colonies listed above but also included the Seasonal Ponds (Zones 1 through 37).The principal survey effort for least terns and western snowy plover was undertaken by CaliforniaDepartment of Fish & Game seasonal staff member, Peter Knapp. Merkel & Associates biologist,Bonnie Peterson, participated intermittently in the survey efforts as support and to aid in collectingdata for report preparation. STI and NS1 were surveyed by vehicle from the West Levee Road prior toarrival of the least terns and then on foot. NTI was used primarily by nesting elegant terns (Thalasseuselegans) and black skimmers (Rynchops niger) and therefore required minimal monitoring for ternsand plovers. NS2 was surveyed by vehicle from the East Levee Road weekly using a spotting scopeand once a month on foot. NS3 was surveyed by vehicle from the north end of the site. The largemajority of suitable western snowy plover nesting habitat in the Seasonal Ponds was visible from theroad network. The observer(s) would slowly drive along the roads that subdivide this area. Frequentstops were made to examine specific areas adjacent to the road with binoculars or spotting scopewithout exiting the vehicle.NS1, NS2, and NS3 are sectioned by markers, which form the basis for data recording. NS1 issectioned south to north from A though CC in a regular grid. Each least tern and snowy plover nestlocated on NS1 was marked with a numbered tongue depressor and mapped for ease of relocation onsubsequent visits.California least tern monitoring began as soon as the terns started arriving at Bolsa Chica in mid-Apriland continued until the terns had fledged and left the breeding grounds in late August. The observerswould walk active tern colonies and mark and record the section of all new nests. This activitytypically occurred between 0800 and 1200 hours, 1 to 2 times per week. Observers would record anyhatched, abandoned or depredated nests. Any signs of disturbance within the tern colonies were alsorecorded. At other times during the week, observations on the status of the colony were made fromobservation points outside of the colony. Observations on least tern chicks and fledglings were madeevery 1 to 2 days to determine hatching and fledging success.Beginning late-March, surveys for nesting western snowy plovers were conducted at least twice aweek, sometimes 4 or 5 times a week, until the beginning of September. Data collected during thisstudy included the gender of the incubating adult, length of incubation (days), number of eggs in theclutch, condition of the nest (e.g. signs of disturbance), and the fate of each nest (hatched, predated, orabandoned). Observations of western snowy plover distribution were also recorded by cell number,throughout the study area, not just those birds associated with nests. Close examination of nests wasusually conducted only once or twice per nest. As snowy plover nests were located they wereprotected by Mini-Exclosures (MEs) placed over the nest.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 53

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportObservations of snowy plover broods were made 3 to 5 days per week. It was usually possible tofollow the movements and determine the fate of the chicks from each brood since there was dispersionover space and time sufficient to differentiate between broods. These regular brood observations wereconducted to determine chick survival or fledgling production, as well as to detect movement betweencells and use of specific cells for brood rearing.ResultsCalifornia Least TernThe complete 2007 results for the California least tern breeding season at Bolsa Chica EcologicalReserve can be read in the annual report (Knapp and O’Reilly 2007)(Appendix 1-F).California least terns arrived at Bolsa Chica on April 14, 2007 and were last observed on the site on August23. The terns nested on STI and NS1 and did not utilize NTI, NS2, or NS3. The overall data were notbroken down by individual site. The first nest was found 15 May on STI and the last nest was found 9 Julyon NS1. From an estimated number of 212 pairs, a total of 392 eggs were laid in 226 nests. The averageclutch size was 1.7 and the first least tern fledgling was recorded on 2 July. California least tern nestpredation was high at 65 (31%) nests and fledgling success for the 2007 season was limited to 15 fledglings(3.8%), 3 from STI and 12 from NS1.Ninety-five-percent of documented least tern mortality was due to depredation (175 chicks and 65 eggs).Most mortality was attributed to the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax; 168 chicks) andblack skimmers (65 nests, 97 eggs). Black-crowned night heron tracks were found on NS1 (U – CC) andon STI. At the same time, chick loss in these areas was nearly 100%. On NS1, black skimmers initiallyestablished nests in the area centered on grids R, S, and T, then expanded into grids O and W. This areawas already the site of least tern nests that were subsequently lost through trampling and potentiallyaggressive behavior by skimmers defending their nests and broods. In addition, 6 chicks were lost to agreat blue heron (Ardea herodias) and ants depredated one chick. Other potential predators included gull,Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), red-tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), American crow, common raven, coyote (Canis latransclepticus), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi nudipes). A subadult male peregrinefalcon (Falco peregrinus) was also captured and relocated from Bolsa Chica to eliminate the potentialthreat of predation.Drought conditions and black skimmer activity destroyed most of the vegetation on NS1, limiting chickcover, which also contributed to the low fledging success.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 54

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportWestern Snowy PloverThe complete 2007 results for the western snowy plover breeding season atBolsa Chica can be read in the annual report (Knapp et al. 2007)(Appendix 1-G).The western snowy plover initiated its first nest on April 9, 2007 and the last nesthatched on August 12. The plovers nested on STI, NS1, NS3, and a number ofcells within the Seasonal Ponds (Table 1-9). The snowy plover did not nest onNTI or NS2. A total of 50 nests were located at Bolsa Chica. Seven completedclutches were 2-egg clutches, while 43 were 3-egg clutches. From the 143 totaleggs produced, 130 chicks were produced. None of the 50 total nest attemptswere lost to predators, however, 2 complete clutches, one with 3 eggs and onewith 2 eggs, failed to hatch. The 2 nests that were abandoned appear to beunrelated to each other. One was located on NS1 and was found on June 8. Thesecond abandoned nest was located in Cell 32 and was found on June 28. Ofthese 130 total chicks produced in 2007, a maximum of 25 chicks (19.2%) wereestimated to have survived to fledge.Male snowy plover with newlyhatched chick and unhatchedegg. Photo Peter Knapp.Table 1-9. 2007 Western Snowy Plover Nests, Nest Fate, and Reproductive Success Distribution by Cell andNest SiteLocation Total Nests Nests Failed*Nests Hatched(# chicks)FledglingsNest Site 1 19 1 18 (50) 17Nest Site 3 8 0 8 (21) 3Cell 11 6 0 6 (17) 4Cell 32 4 1 3 (7) 0South Tern Island 4 0 4 (11) 0Cell 13 3 0 3 (8) 0Cell 22 3 0 3 (9) 13 other areas 3 0 3 (7) 0Total 50 2 48 (130) 25*Both nest failures in 2007 were due to nest abandonment.Fledglings per nest (0.50 fledglings/nest) ranked the lowest out of 10 years of fledgling estimates. Onehundred five chicks were most likely lost to predation. Of this loss, the only documented take was byAmerican kestrel: one on NS1 and the other in the Seasonal Pond area. The most likely cause ofsnowy plover chick mortality in 2007 continued to be kestrels, as in prior years. They were relativelyabundant and can do great harm very quickly. Other chicks were potentially lost to predation bycommon raven, coyote, black-crowned night heron, and black skimmers. Raven loss was estimated at6 chicks by indirect signs. The loss to coyotes is estimated at one brood of 3 chicks that hatchedcoincident with coyote/pup activity on NS3. Coyote tracks substantiate the probable loss. The loss toblack-crowned night heron, as recorded for the California least tern, is probable on ST1 and possiblyon NS1. Heron tracks indicated widespread hunting coincident with chick production and loss of 13chicks. The probable loss of chicks to black skimmers was on NS1, where a total of 13 chicks wereMerkel & Associates, Inc. 55

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportlost. Coincident with least tern chick loss in this area of NS1, 5 snowy plover nests protected by MEssuccessfully hatched; however, the chicks were never observed post-hatching.DiscussionReproductive success at Bolsa Chica for both the California least tern and western snowy plover wasextremely low in 2007. This is largely due to loss of nests and/or chicks to depredation within theproject area and black skimmer activity on NS1. The western snowy plover did not lose any nests topredation as a result of protection of the nests by the use of MEs. However, chick losses were stillvery high post-hatching.Management of the California least tern and western snowy plover nesting sites is expected to beadaptive due to enhancement of the Bolsa Chica area and the creation of new nesting and foragingareas. Management recommendations in 2007 were made to increase reproductive success and toenhance the newly created nesting sites (Knapp and O’Reilly 2007, Knapp et a.l, 2007). NS1 washighly utilized for nesting by a number of species including elegant tern, black skimmer, and Americanavocet (Recurvirostra americana). Black skimmers are the only species that appear to be detrimentalto California least tern and western snowy plover. Confinement of the skimmers by utilizing chickfence to separate the nesting species would be recommended in the event that the skimmers continueutilize NS1 in subsequent years. Increased cover in the form of vegetation and debris would decreaseleast terns and snowy plovers chick exposure to predators, lowering predation and aiding in increasedforaging areas for snowy plovers. Night surveys by predator control staff may increase chances ofdetermining and discouraging night predators, such as the black-crowned night heron, by detectingpredation early and limiting their activity. NS2 and NS3 are currently not utilized by the least tern andmay not be suitable for increasing reproductive success without further management.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 56

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Report1.7. NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIESAn awareness of the importance of tracking the arrival and spread of non-native species has increasedin recent years, particularly with the discovery of the invasive non-native seaweed Caulerpa taxifoliain nearby Huntington Harbour and in Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County. Early detection ofsome species of invasive plants and animals may allow the opportunity for quick and economicalresponse activities. These species may include non-native seaweeds such as Caulerpa spp., Sargassumfilicinum, and Undaria pinnatifida, or terrestrial weed plants such as pampas grass or Arundo, asmentioned above. However, there are other non-native species that are already proliferating inregional coastal embayments and are likely to invade the tidal areas of Bolsa Chica at some point in thefuture. While options to restrict these species from Bolsa Chica are limited, keeping good records onthe time of arrival and the degree of spread can be helpful for understanding the threat posed by thesespecies to Bolsa Chica, as well as for the general body of knowledge about these species.During the first year several non-native marine species wereobserved. Japanese wireweed (Sargassum muticum) is aseaweed native to Japan that is widespread in SouthernCalifornia bays, commonly found on rock, riprap, or otherhard substrate. This brown alga has been documented tocompete with and displace native species of seaweed andeelgrass by reducing light through shading. At Bolsa Chicathe seaweed has not yet colonized the riprap, rather wasobserved in late 2007 in the open water of the FTB. Theholdfasts of the seaweed were secured to speckled scallops(Argopecten ventricosus), which were serving as mini-reefsSargassum muticum attached to a speckled scallop.for the S. muticum to settle onto. It is estimated that up to 100such pairings occurred throughout the FTB in December 2007. It is likely that hard substrate withinthe basin will become colonized with S. muticum following future reproductive events by thepopulation on the scallops. There are no feasible means to control or prevent colonization by S.muticum, nor is its potential biological impact clearly understood in southern California.The Japanese mussel (Musculista senhousia) is another non-native that would inevitably arrive atBolsa Chica. This species settles from the plankton onto soft substrate and can form dense mats ofentangled fibrous threads. This mat and the thousands of mussels that can colonize per square metercan inhibit the feeding of native filter feeders and the spread of eelgrass. Although there is noevidence of dense mats having formed at this time at Bolsa Chica, the capture of several individuals inthe fishing nets indicates their presence in both the Muted Pocket Marsh and the FTB. There is noeffective means to control this species, however it has been documented that dense, healthy eelgrassbeds can inhibit the growth of M. senhousia (Allen and Williams, 2003).There are numerous terrestrial non-native species in the wetlands of southern California, however theBolsa Chica Lowlands are fortunate to be devoid of two of the most invasive and difficult species.There is little to no occurrence of the giant reed (Arundo donax) or pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana)within the study area. Any observations of these species will be immediately reported to theDepartment for removal. Ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis) is widespread in the system and is beingremoved by Department and volunteer hand labor as time permits. It is likely that herbicide controlwould benefit the control or eradication of this species from the wetlands.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 57

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportIn some areas, particularly along the northern and eastern boundary of the study area, a few highlyinvasive terrestrial weeds were observed in the early stages of establishment. These include artichokethistle (Cynara cardunculus), castorbean (Ricinus communis), Brazilian peppertree (Schinusterebinthifolius). Thesize and distribution ofthese specific plants isquite limited currently,unlike the ice plantand mustard discussedabove. Early removalor herbicide treatmentof these individualsYoung non-native species to be targeted for removal during early stages of invasion.would be tremendously helpful in restricting their spread and may result in financial and labor savingby avoiding their widespread establishment, such as currently seen with the mustard and others. TheCalifornia Invasive Plant Council recommends prompt removal or treatment of these species upontheir discovery if possible.RecommendationsConduct focused weed removal efforts on invasive species of limited distribution in spring, prior torelease of seeds into the system.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 58

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportII. PHYSICAL MONITORING PROGRAMThe physical monitoring program focuses on large-scale morphological changes of the system andtidal response to these changes. Principally this monitoring includes evaluation of inlet shoaling,coastal beach response to inlet conditions and sand loss to the flood bar, and tidal reaction to shoaldevelopment. The physical monitoring program is intended to monitor changes in relation toestablished management triggers, and to adaptively evaluate and recommend adjustment of triggerswhere appropriate to ensure health of the system and protection of coastal beach resources.2.1. INLET FLOOD SHOALIntroductionA newly constructed inlet to a tidally influenced system will typically interrupt longshore sedimenttransport and divert sediment both offshore (creating an ebb bar) and towards the tidal basin (creating aflood shoal). As the ebb bar forms, it affects the wave and current regime. This, in turn, causes theshoreline planform to evolve toward a new dynamic equilibrium condition. Similarly, the flood andebb tidal currents moving through the inlet will build and shape a flood shoal in the interior of the tidebasin. The configurations and sizes of the bars depend on the tidal prism of the basin, cross-sectionalarea of the tidal inlet, length of the jetties, tidal range, and longshore sediment transport rate. Whilecomplete equilibrium is rarely achieved, rates of change within the ebb bar and flood shoal typicallydiminish as the conditions around a new inlet stabilize. To limit early adverse impacts of ebb bardevelopment on the shoreline processes, approximately 929,326 m 3 (1,214,579 y 3 ) of sand was placedas pre-fill to form the ebb bar at Bolsa Chica. This fill was placed to avoid the potential of the full ebbbar developing from beach sand longshore drift and thus robbing the littoral cell of mobile sandsupply.As beach sand migrates longshore on the coast, it is made available for capture by flood tides intoBolsa Chica. Sand is moved into the system where it settles into a flood shoal. A portion of this sandis moved back to the beach with the ebbing tide while a portion of the sand remains trapped in theshoal deposits. As the flood shoal matures, it will begin to restrict ebbing tidal flow through the inlet.Tidal flow restriction will diminish or mute the full tidal range in the system relative to the tidal rangethat would exist without the flood shoal. Therefore, a monitoring, maintenance, and maintenancedredging plan 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.The oversized inlet of Bolsa Chica was sized to accommodate the tidal prism of the FTB, the threeMTBs, and the FFTB. From the time of opening and throughout 2007, only the FTB supplied tidalprism through the inlet. As a result, tidal velocities through the inlet are too low to keep the channelbetween the jetties fully open and sedimentation is expected and has been observed in the inletchannel. As additional tidal prism is added to the system with the opening of the MTBs, the inletmouth will increase in cross-sectional area as it responds to the higher tidal velocity required to feedthe system during tidal exchanges.The preliminary engineering studies (M&N 1999) done for the project predicted a flood shoal volumeof 126,200 m 3 (165,000 y 3 ) at the end of the first year and a shoaling rate of 102,500 m 3 /year (134,000y 3 /year) for the second year after the inlet was to be connected to the ocean, for a total ofapproximately 230,000 m 3 (300,000 y 3 ) over the first two years. The predicted flood shoal location isMerkel & Associates, Inc. 59

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportillustrated in Figure 2-1. Investigations were completed to assess the true rate of shoal accretion anddistribution pattern of flood shoal development.Full TidalBasin (Phase I)Modeled Shoal AreaTidal InletScale 1’’= 1,800’Figure 2-1. Predicted Flood Shoal Area (cited from M&N 1999).MethodologyThe rate and distribution of sand accretion in the FTB inlet was assessed during three surveys in thefirst year: January 19 and June 27, 2007 and January 10, 2008. The results of the 2008 survey areincluded in the present report as they document the bathymetric changes that occurred in the latter halfof 2007. The survey area was presented in Figure 1-1.The surveys were conducted from a small survey vessel with sub-meter accurate differential globalpositioning system (dGPS) and a survey-grade SyQuest Hydrobox ® fathometer. The first surveyextended from the PCH bridge into the FTB, within the maintenance basin and beyond any evidence offlood shoaling. The survey area was expanded in the latter surveys after field observations indicatedthe shoaling extended to the north of the maintenance basin. The expanded survey area extended fromthe PCH bridge north to the Freeman Creek outlet to the FTB. All future surveys will include thislarger area.During the July 2007 and January 2008 surveys, large areas of the shoals were not accessible by boatdue to their high elevation. To determine the elevation of these areas, additional survey work wasconducted using a total station for land-based survey.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 60

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportData from the vessel based bathymetric survey were post-processed to correct for tidal elevations at thetime of the survey, and the boat and shore data was used to develop bathymetric contour plots for thebasin.For each survey, detailed contour plots were aligned with plots of the same area from the postconstruction,pre-opening, contour data collected on August 20, 2006 that was provided by Moffatt &Nichol.ResultsThe contour plots for the pre-opening survey and the three post-opening surveys are presented inFigure 2-2. The volume of sand accreted within the inlet survey area in comparison to the pre-openingconditions is presented in the following table (Table 2-1).Table 2-1. Increase in inlet sediment volume in comparison to pre-opening conditions.Sediment AccretionSurvey date cubic meters cubic yardsJanuary 2007 + 90,311 + 118,122June 2007 + 155,716 + 203,669January 2008 + 197,692 + 258,571The contour plots of each survey were also compared to detect areas of erosion and accretion betweensurveys. These comparisons are presented graphically in Figure 2-3. The large accretion of sandobserved on the southeast shore of the inlet during the January 2007 survey was eroded to some degreein the following months, with most of the incoming sand accreting on the western shore of the inlet, asrecorded in the June 2007 and January 2008 surveys. The shoals appear to be highly transitory, withdaily and weekly fluctuations in the distribution of the sand. The deepest portion of the inlet channelhas shifted to run up the eastern shoreline.Flood shoal development within Bolsa Chica exhibits patterns typical of coastal wetland systems.Shoals develop as individual depositional fans along the primary flow alignment. As sediments aredeposited, the resistance to flow along the channel increases and shoals continue to build until suchtime as the flows break out of the main channel and define a new primary channel. As a result of thecontinued process, the flood shoal builds as a series of teardrop shaped lobes running into the basin.These are subsequently modified by wave and current erosion as water moves past and across thedeposited fan. The importance of this shoaling process is that it creates a regular depositional patternthrough a process of unpredictable events. The shoaling by highly settleable sands follows a pathwayalong the principal coarse of flow with little lateral spread in footprint. As a result, quiescent watersthat are outside of the higher velocity effective flow path may not receive sediment deposition andmore linear shoals may develop in alignment with flow patterns. Terminal and lateral slopes of theflood shoal deposit are typically at or near the angle of repose for the clean sands (approximately 4:1).Table 2-2 tracks the accretion of sand over time and shows a large input of sand between the basinopening on August 24, 2006 and the first survey on January 19, 2007. The total rate of volume changefrom the basin opening to the January 2008 survey, roughly 17 months later, was 392 m 3 /day. It isimportant to note, however, that this average rate does not represent the actual accretion per day, asdeposition and erosion occurred throughout the period at an uneven rate.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 61

M&A# 05-162-01August 2006 January 2007June 2007 January 2008LEGENDElevation (NAVD/meters)-3.1 - -2.5-2.5 - -2-2 - -1.5-1.5 - -1-1 - -0.5-0.5 - 00 - 0.50.5-11 - 1.51.5-22 - 2.52.5 - 3.1N100 0 100 MetersFull Tidal Basin InletBathymetryBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectOrange County, CaliforniaMerkel & Associates, Inc.Figure 2-2

M&A# 05-162-01August 2006 to January 2007January 2007 to June 2007June 2007 to January 2008 August 2006 to January 2008LEGENDErosion Depth (meters)-3.0 - -2.5-2.5 - -2-2 - -1.5-1.5 - -1-1 - -0.5-0.5 - 0Accretion Height (meters)0-0.5 1.5 - 20.5 - 1 2-2.51-1.5 2.5 - 33-3.53.5 - 44-4.5N100 0 100 MetersFull Tidal Basin InletSediment Accretion and ErosionBolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectOrange County, CaliforniaMerkel & Associates, Inc.Figure 2-3

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTable 2-2. Change in sediment volumes between surveys and rate of sediment accretion.Change in Sediment VolumeSurvey date range Time cubic meters cubic yards cubic meters/dayfrom Aug '06 to Jan '07 148 days + 90,311 + 118,122 + 610from Jan '07 to June '07 159 days + 66,219 + 86,611 + 416from June '07 to Jan '08 197 days +40,675 + 53,201 +206from Aug '06 to Jan '08 504 days + 197,692 + 258,571 + 392Figure 2-4 presents the accretion rate graphically as sediment accretion per month within the surveyarea indicated in Figure 2-1. The initial large input of sand between the basin opening and the January2007 survey was 90,311 m 3 over a roughly 5 month period, for an average of 18,062 m 3 /month. Therate of accretion dropped between January and June 2007 to 13,244 m 3 /month and slowed even morebetween June 2007 and January 2008 to 6,779 m 3 /month. It may be useful in the future to comparewhole calendar years to one another. The accretion rate from January 2007 to January 2008 was anaverage of 8,948 m 3 /month or an average of 301 m 3 /day. Again, the averages do not represent theactual accretion per day or month, as deposition and erosion occurred throughout the period at anuneven rate.Sediment Accretion Rate per MonthAccretion Rate (m 3 /month)2000015000100005000018,062 m 3 /moOpening thru Jan. 2007(5 month period)Figure 2-4. Sediment accretion rate per month.13,244 m 3 /moJan. 2007 thru June 2007(5 month period)6,779 m 3 /moJune 2007 thru Jan. 2008(6 month period)DiscussionThe bathymetry survey of the FTB basin near the tidal inlet and numerous site visits indicate that thetidal inlet morphology and sediment depositional areas (inlet thalweg and flood shoal patterns) arehighly dynamic due to dynamic tidal and sedimentation processes. The January 2007 survey showsthat the inlet thalweg was in the middle of the inlet channel and the shoal was on the southeast side ofthe inlet channel as shown in Figure 2-1. This reflects the infancy state of the wetland geomorphologyat that time, with sediment not yet having deposited along the inside bank of the tidal inlet channel.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 64

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe June 2007 survey shows sedimentation along the inside bank of the tidal inlet channel, with thechannel being forced toward the outside bank. That pattern continued to evolve over time and is alsoreflected in the January 2008 survey. From mouth opening through January 2008, each survey showsthe flood bar growing progressively larger, corresponding to a period of time when low tides in thetidal basin were becoming increasingly truncated and tides were becoming more muted. The effects ofthe shoaling on tidal muting are analyzed in Section 2.2.Based on bathymetric surveys, the flood shoal volume anticipate to have been deposited during thefirst year, August 2006 through August 2007, was approximately 169,500 m 3 (222,000 y 3 ) (derived bytaking the 155,716 m 3 surveyed in June of 2007 and adding 6,779 m 3 X 2 months as an averageestimated deposition rate for the subsequent 6 month period). This method of annualizing the shoalvolume would be expected to result in an underestimate of shoaling due to the generally decliningshoaling rate. However, using this estimating approach, the actual shoaling rate is 34% higher than the126,200 m 3 (165,000 y 3 ) predicted as the first year shoal volume (M&N 1999).As expected, the subsequent sediment accretion rate shown in Figure 2-3 decreases gradually, whilethe flood shoal develops towards an equilibrium state. The second year shoaling rate from September2007 through August 2008 is roughly estimated at 75,600 m 3 (99,000 y 3 ) (derived by taking thedifference between the January 2008 survey volume and the estimated August 2007 volume mentionedabove and adding 6,779 m 3 X 7 months) for the remaining 7 months to annualize the shoaling rate forthe second year post opening. This rate is substantially lower than the 102,500 m 3 (134,000 y 3 /year)shoaling volume predicted by preliminary engineering modeling for the second year after the inlet wasto be connected to the ocean (M&N 1999). However, when taken as a whole, the model predicted twoyear accumulation volume of 230,000 m 3 (300,000 y 3 ) compares very favorable to the early periodmeasurements and rate-based escalation two-year volume of 245,100 m 3 (320,300 y 3 ) from the postconstructionmonitoring. The reasonably good alignment of modeling with observational data (7%deviation) is remarkable and illustrates the benefits of evaluation of change over the longer two-yeartime period. The variable seasonal influx of sand, and added complication of provision of local sourcesand in the pre-filled ebb bar and beach around the mouth is expected to have played a role in alteringearly infill rates. However, subsequent reduced rates of infill may illustrate more rapid achievement orrelative stability following the initial system loading. The lack of temporal precision and high varianceassociated with early system dynamics is to be expected with limited predictive methods.The flood shoal volume, area of shoaling, and shoaling rate all have occurred similar to processespredicted during the project design. The notable difference between predicted shoaling and thatactually observed has been the bypass of much of the maintenance basin by the shoal formation andthus a greater penetration into the FTB than would be expected at this point in shoal formation. Inretrospect, this bypass should have been predictable given past observations of shoal development insystems such as Batiquitos Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, and the TijuanaEstuary.The manner in which the basin performs as expected or different from expected is a factor indetermining the necessity for shoal dredging and the establishment of triggers. This is addressed inSection 2.4.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 65

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Report2.2. TIDAL MONITORINGIntroductionTidal monitoring is fundamental to understanding the factors influencing physical and biologicalstructure of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. As a non-estuarine system with very minor surface freshwaterinput, oceanic tides combined with winds are the principal extrinsic forces driving the hydrodynamicswithin the wetlands. Conversely, as these factors act to sculpt the physical and biologicalenvironments, feedback loops associated with alteration of basin bedform and shoreline conditionsinfluence tidal conditions within the system. Ultimately, roughness associated with vegetationdevelopment will also play a factor, however presently; this is an inconsequential variable in assessingsystem conditions.At the present time, accretion and erosion of sand within the flood shoal of the FTB is the singularmost important factor resulting in tidal lag and muting. While is anticipated that the future opening ofthe muted tidal basins will influence the shape of tidal curves in the FTB, it is expected that theprincipal factor influencing performance of the entire system will be the tidal drain and fill parametersbetween the ocean and the FTB. Tides in the FTB can, however, have a profound effect on the tidalconditions, and even the operational regime of the muted tidal basins.The restoration and opening of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands to the Pacific Ocean allows for the trappingof nearshore littoral sands to be drawn into the FTB, forming a flood shoal that restricts and retardstidal flows at the entrance of the FTB (refer to Section 2.1). Tidal monitoring provides a means oftracking the tidal lag and muting to provide information regarding the functionality of the system andthe need for maintenance dredging.The tidal monitoring program also offers key insights into intertidal mudflat and vegetative habitatdevelopment within intertidal elevation ranges. Because tidal muting and loss of drainage affectinundation frequency within the intertidal zone that further effects oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)of sediments changes in tidal hydroperiods and ranges can have substantial consequences on mudflatsand marshland development.MethodologyTidal monitoring began in the FTB on December 21, 2006 and was continuous throughout 2007 withdata collected at 6-minute intervals. The data were collected with a RBR Instruments TGR2050pressure gauge. The TGR2050 has a depth accuracy of ±5 mm and a resolution of ±0.1 mm. A secondTGR2050 pressure gauge was deployed nearby, on shore and used to correct the submerged pressuregauge for atmospheric pressure.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 ) / ( * 0.980665);where depth is the water depth in meters at the pressure gauge, P w is the pressure in deciBars read atthe in-water pressure gauge, P atm is the local atmospheric pressure in deciBars, is the density ofseawater measured at the study site (1.027 g/cm 3 ), and 0.980665 is a gravitational constant (RBR2007).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 66

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe tide logger was mounted 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 m NAVD (-0.15 ft). This elevation was not sufficient to capture the lower low tides during spring tidal cycles. OnJanuary 19, 2007 at 13:00, the bracket was extended, resulting in a sensor elevation of –0.68 m NAVD(–2.24 ft). Tidal elevations were calculated by adjusting the 6-minute water depth data with the sensorelevation. The tidal muting analyses are based on data collected over a one-year period from January20, 2007 through January 31, 2008.Recorded tides were compared with tides measured at the nearest tidal station, located 22.5 kilometers(14 miles) north in Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LAOH) (NOAA Station 9410660). The NOAA gaugeis located immediately adjacent to the open ocean, and the recorded tides represent the ocean tidalconditions. The data were obtained from the NOAA Tides and Currents website(http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov). The obtained data were not temporally corrected based on distanceto the study site because the correction is less than the logging period.ResultsComparison of the lower low tide data for each sampling date since January 20, 2007 against theNOAA tide data for LAOH shows that the FTB does not completely drain to local oceanic sea levelsduring lower low spring tides (Figure 2-5a). Moreover, simple inspection of the data indicates thattidal muting was becoming more pronounced through the 2007 monitoring period as the flood shoalbuilt.Plotting the difference between the minimum observed tidal elevations for all daily lower low tides atLos Angeles versus the FTB illustrates increased tidal muting during 2007 (Figure 2-5b). Mean tidalmuting within the FTB has increased by 0.10 m (0.34 ft) between January 20, 2007 and January 31,2008. This equates to approximately 8.5 mm (0.028 ft) per month during the monitoring period(Figure 2-4b). Notably, on infrequent occasions the tidal elevation of the ocean tides marginallyexceeded the elevation within the FTB. This occurred principally at periods of neap tide and may bethe result of a variety of factors ranging from inlet morphology, tidal lag influences, to instrumentvariance at particular times. While the mean low tide muting has increased by only a moderateamount, more significant muting occurs during spring tide series when the greatest tidal range isobserved (Figure 2-4a).Table 2-3 summarizes the monthly highest and lowest tidal elevations observed in the FTB and LAOH.Because the FTB gauge was lowered on January 19, 2007 only a partial month was analyzed inJanuary 2007. The monthly maximum tidal ranges shown in Table 2-3 column (4) for the FTB andcolumn (7) for the LAOH were calculated by subtracting the recorded highest tide by the lowest tidefor each month. Column (8) shows the monthly high tide differences by subtracting the highest tide inthe FTB by that at LAOH. A negative number indicates that the ocean high tide is higher than that inthe FTB, and a positive number indicates the FTB has a higher high tide than that in the ocean. Thelatter could be the result of disturbances in the measurements or other error. Without substantialepisodic event shoaling of the inlet, the high tide should theoretically rise to a higher level on the opencoast than within the Bolsa Chica basin. However, the differences in the high tide elevations are verysmall, which indicates the overall measurement is reliable and there is no consequential muting of thehigh tides. Column (9) shows the low tide muting in the FTB, which is calculated by subtracting themonthly low tide in the FTB by that in the ocean. The low tides are muted, and muting conditions arechanging over time as a result of flood shoal development in the basin.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 67

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportLower Low Tide (meters NAVD)0.80.60.40.20.0-0.2-0.4FTBLAOHDaily Minimum Tidal Elevations-0.61/20/20072/20/20073/20/20074/20/20075/20/20076/20/20077/20/20078/20/20079/20/200710/20/200711/20/200712/20/20071/20/2008Figure 2-5a. Minimum daily tidal elevations in the Bolsa Chica Full Tidal Basin (FTB) and at the Los AngelesOuter Harbor (LAOH) between January 20, 2007 and January 31, 2008. Values are measured, lower low tidein meters NAVD88.Daily Minimum Tide Differences (Bolsa FTB minus LAOH)0.50.4Delta (meters)0.30.20.10.0-0.11/20/20072/20/20073/20/20074/20/20075/20/20076/20/20077/20/20078/20/20079/20/200710/20/200711/20/200712/20/20071/20/2008Figure 2-5b. Daily differences in lower low tide elevations between the FTB and the LAOH. Values are inmeters with negative values indicating lower tidal values in the Bolsa Chica FTB and positive values indicatinglower tidal values at LAOH. The straight line represents the trend in the daily differences over the datesobserved.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 68

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTable 2-3. Summary of Monthly High and Low Tides (m, NAVD).FTBLAOH (Represents the Ocean) High Tide Low TideMonth(1)High(2)Low(3)Range(4)High(5)Low(6)Range(7)Difference (m)(8)Muting (m)(9)01/19 to01/31/2007 2.083 -0.183 2.266 2.094 -0.344 2.438 -0.011 0.16102/2007 2.048 -0.280 2.328 2.054 -0.469 2.524 -0.007 0.19003/2007 1.933 -0.166 2.100 1.981 -0.354 2.335 -0.048 0.18704/2007 2.111 -0.100 2.210 2.054 -0.418 2.472 0.056 0.31805/2007 2.117 -0.201 2.318 2.128 -0.515 2.643 -0.011 0.31406/2007 2.218 -0.163 2.381 2.234 -0.411 2.646 -0.016 0.24907/2007 2.126 -0.246 2.371 2.216 -0.408 2.624 -0.090 0.16308/2007 2.093 -0.028 2.121 2.088 -0.262 2.350 0.005 0.23409/2007 2.111 0.074 2.038 2.109 -0.125 2.234 0.002 0.19810/2007 2.194 0.004 2.190 2.198 -0.387 2.585 -0.004 0.39111/2007 2.243 -0.057 2.300 2.249 -0.512 2.762 -0.007 0.45512/2007 2.166 -0.155 2.321 2.210 -0.558 2.768 -0.044 0.40201/2008 2.125 -0.155 2.280 2.137 -0.561 2.698 -0.012 0.406When examining the maximum muting that occurs on a monthly basis, the severity is quite differentfrom that observed for the mean of the low tides. In this case, muting reached a November 2007 highof 0.455 m (1.49 feet) from a January 2007 low of 0.161 m (0.53 feet) (Figure 2-6). In addition, thedata indicate the presence of seasonal variation in muting with increased muting in the spring and falland decreased muting during the summer months. Figure 2-6 also reveals fairly substantial changes inmuting rates between months.Low Tide Muting (meters)0.50.450.40.350.30.250.20.150.10.050Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Figure 2-6. Maximum low tide muting over each monitoring month. Muting reflects the maximum differencebetween the FTB and corresponding LAOH low tides.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 69

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportPlots of tidal elevations within the FTB and LAOH over this time period between December 21, 2006and January 31, 2008 are presented on a monthly basis for the entire data set in Appendix 2-A. Figure2-7 shows a tidal comparison of February 2007, seven months after the inlet was connected to theocean in August 2006.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50February 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Figure 2-7. Example comparison of recorded tides (February 2007) at FTB with the ocean tides (LAOH).By analyzing the tidal records for the FTB and LAOH, it is possible to determine the phase lag for lowtide drain-out from the FTB. As shown in Figure 2-7 and Appendix 2-A, there is no discernable phaselag between the high tides in the basin and those in the ocean. The lag of the low tide in the FTBcompared to that in the ocean was approximately 78 minutes on January 19 th 2007 and 114 minutes onJanuary 21st 2008. The low tide lag increased by 36 minutes over the course of the monitoring year asthe flood shoal built.DiscussionThe preliminary engineering studies (M&N 1999) predicted a maximum tidal range of 2.286 m (7.50ft) and a low tide muting of 0.213 m (0.70 ft) in the FTB under the post-construction condition. Thetidal monitoring started on December 21, 2006 so there are no tidal records available for the immediatepost-construction condition (August 26, 2006 through December 20, 2006). The recorded spring lowtides were truncated before January 19, 2007 as described in the tide monitoring methodology. TheFTB experienced a tidal range of 2.266 m (7.44 ft) and a low tide muting of 0.161 m (0.53 ft) inJanuary 19, 2007; and a tidal range of 2.328 m (7.64 ft) and a low tide muting of 0.190 m (0.62 ft) inFebruary 2007. The recorded tides were very close to the predicted values of the post-constructioncondition.By January 2008, the monitoring data show that the FTB experienced a tidal range of 2.280 m (7.48 ft)and a low tide muting of 0.406 m (1.33 ft). Tidal muting predictions in preliminary engineering aseffects of shoaling are for the tide range to reach 2.256 m (7.4 ft) and muting of the low tide to reachMerkel & Associates, Inc. 70

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Report0.244 m (0.80 ft) (M&N 1999). Generally, the tidal range under the post-construction condition metthe target of the “full tidal range” objective of the project planning documents throughout themonitoring period. Muting of the low tides, however, has exceeded the predicted muting followingshoal development.This is partially attributed to the fact that preliminary engineering tidal predictions were based on atheoretical average spring tidal condition not the monthly maximum spring tide condition noted in themuting analysis (Table 2-3). Because of concerns for drain-fill hydraulics of the MTBs, however,these maximum ranges are of key interest as they pertain to potential for building water levels withinmuted basins.It was expected that the tidal range would gradually decrease and muting of the low tide wouldincrease over time. This was observed through the monitoring year. It is further expected that mutingand phase lag will become more severe due to effects of flood bar development in the FTB until theimplementation of the first dredging event.It is worth noting that the Basis of Design Report (M&N 2004) shows an initial planning goal ofachieving a tide range of nearly 2.75 meters (9.0 ft) during extreme tides. This objective, however,was impractical for the system given the short jetties and shallow shoreline condition at the inlet. Lowtides are truncated due to friction in the inlet and flood bar elevations with only moderate shoaldevelopment. As a result of the final design and constructed conditions match more closely to thepreliminary engineering models that target tide ranges of a maximum of 2.29 meters (7.5 feet). Thesite never met the tide range of 9.0 feet since being opened, but regularly met the 2.29 m (7.5 ft) tiderange over time, as shown in Table 2.3. Although the FTB is still close to meeting the target tidalrange of 2.29 m (7.5 ft) under shoaled (muted) conditions, the trend is toward a decreasing range andwhen considered along with other variables (shoal volume and area of low intertidal habitat lost)signals a need for maintenance dredging to occur.In the “Statements of Interest for the Environmental and Beach Profile Monitoring of the Bolsa ChicaLowlands Restoration Project”, a dredging trigger was proposed as follows: “a tidal muting of theaverage low tide elevations (Mean Low Water) in the order of 0.5 feet would indicate that the floodshoal maintenance dredging was warranted”. This should be revised since the Mean Low Water in theFTB is unlikely to ever be muted prior to failure of the MTB tide gates. The spring low tide would be amore appropriate parameter to gage the muting in the FTB. The drainage efficiency of the MTBstogether with the MTB function will be one of the triggers since the drainage efficiency can bemodified to a certain degree by limiting the intake water volume. The west MTB was connected to theFTB on March 5 th 2008. An appropriate dredging trigger related to tides should be developed aftermonitoring of the tides in the muted tidal basin in 2008.Tidal muting is dynamic and is generally comparable to what was expected during preliminaryengineering, with the following specific observations:Tidal muting is positively correlated with tidal range, with greater muting occurring duringspring tides and less muting occurring during neap tides;The trend of low-tide tidal muting is gradually increasing over time, with the greatest increasein muting occurring in the Spring and Fall of 2007; likely coincident with the major drainagerestriction due to the flood shoal and changes in shoal configuration;Merkel & Associates, Inc. 71

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportHigh tides remain comparable between oceanic and FTB tides indicating no tidal restrictionfrom inlet dimensions;Tidal plots in the 2=- A-2and Table 2-3 show tidal muting on the order of 0.4 meters (1.31 feet)of the low tide for average spring tides over a period of four months (October 2007 throughJanuary 2008), preliminarily indicating the need for maintenance dredging.The spring low tide has been maintained at -0.16 m (-0.51 ft) through January 2008, which is acritical factor for MTB draining. This suggests that at present, muting levels, the MTBs willfunction as intended.2.3. BEACH MONITORINGIntroductionThe objective of the beach monitoring program is to develop a quantitative understanding of changesin the condition of the beaches adjacent to the newly constructed Bolsa Chica 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 semi-annualbeach profile surveys and monthly beach width measurements at seven sites located along a 5.3 kmsection of coastline between Bolsa Chica State Beach and 17 th Street in Huntington Beach. CoastalFrontiers Corporation conducted the beach profile surveys, while Moffatt and Nichol performed thebeach width measurements. The historical research and collected data analysis was conducted byCoastal Frontiers Corporation.Figure 2-8 shows the locations of the beach profile transects used in the monitoring program. Two ofthese were established specifically for the monitoring program and were first surveyed in January2007. Five of the transects had been established previously and were included in the Coast ofCalifornia Storm and Tidal Waves Study for the Orange County Region (CCSTWS-OC) conducted bythe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2002).Transect establishment/recovery activities were conducted prior to the commencement of the initialbeach profile survey. Beach profile surveys were conducted in January, May, and October 2007. Themonthly beach width measurements commenced in January 2007. The monitoring activities weredetailed previously by Coastal Frontiers (2007a, 2007b, 2008) and are discussed under themethodology 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-B, 2-C, 2-D, and 2-E.Historical Background InformationThe Bolsa Chica study area is contained within the Huntington Beach littoral cell, spanning theshoreline from the East Jetty of Anaheim Bay to the Newport Harbor Entrance. The area has beenstudied 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 San Gabrieland Santa Ana Rivers, with modest input from coastal bluff erosion. The littoral transport regimechanged substantially following construction of the Long Beach/Los Angeles Harbor Complex, theMerkel & Associates, Inc. 72

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportjetties at Anaheim Bay (for the U.S. Navy Weapons Station, Seal Beach), and numerous flood controlmeasures. Coastal erosion was particularly severe in Surfside-Sunset Beach and West Newport Beach.249+30Historical TransectNewly-Established TransectNew Entrance Channel311+22318+30333+30350+71378+292 km423+89Figure 2-8. Location map.In response to the loss of private and public property caused by erosion, the U.SACE, in concert withthe State of California and the County of Orange, has undertaken periodic beach nourishmentoperations in the Huntington Beach cell since 1964. The majority of the sand nourishment has beenplaced at Surfside-Sunset Beach, immediately upcoast of the Bolsa Chica study area. Table 2-4summarizes the beach nourishment history at Surfside-Sunset Beach.The beaches along the Bolsa Chica study area benefited as the downdrift recipient of the Surfside-Sunset nourishment material. During the 34-year period between 1963 and 1997, the beachesadvanced at four of the five historical transects included in the Bolsa Chica monitoring program.Mean sea level (MSL) shoreline advance ranged from 14 m at Transect 423+89 to 71 m at Transect350+71. The only occurrence of shoreline retreat during the 34-yr period was a loss of 18 m atTransect 378+28, located at Huntington Cliffs. The volume of sand above MSL increased in parallelMerkel & Associates, Inc. 73

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportto the beach width changes during the period. The shorezone volumes in the study area, whichincorporate the sediment changes further offshore, increased at all of the sites. The greatest gainstypically occurred prior to 1978 (USACE, 2002).Table 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 1,707,000Source: USACE, 2002; Mesa, 2008aHistorical 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 are summarizedbelow.Historical Beach Profile DataAs indicated above, five of the beach profile transects used in the Bolsa Chica monitoring programwere included in the CCSTWS-OC. The study incorporated data from 18 beach profile surveysconducted between 1963 and 1997. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted an additional beachprofile survey of the area in March 2002. More recent shoreline data are available from several LightDetection and Ranging (LIDAR) surveys commissioned by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.These data were used to provide historical context for the results of the current Bolsa Chica monitoringprogram.The survey data used in the CCSTWS-OC for the period 1963-1995 were retrieved from the archivesmaintained by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. The 1997 and 2002 survey data were obtainedfrom the Coastal Frontiers Corporate archives. LIDAR data for October 2005 and March 2006 wereretrieved from archives maintained by NOAA (NOAA, 2008).The beach profile data used in the CCSTWS-OC are summarized in Figure 2-9. The historical surveysare not uniform with respect to profile location or areal extent. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers insupport of the Surfside-Sunset nourishment program, navigation channel deepening at Anaheim Bay,Merkel & Associates, Inc. 74

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportor the CCSTWS-OC, performed most of the surveys. The transect locations differ among surveys dueto the scope of each project and the perceived needs at the time of each survey. Only the profile dataobtained between 1992-1997, and more recently in March 2002, are coincident with the transectlocations used in the CCSTWS-OC.Surfside-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-970Surveyed TransectStation (feet)CCSTWS-OC TransectCCSTWS-OC Transectused in Bolsa ChicaMonitoring ProgramFigure 2-9. Beach profile data used in CCSTWS-OC.In order to allow a comprehensive analysis based on the direct comparison of successive profiles atfixed locations, the CCSTWS-OC study employed a triangular irregular network (TIN) model todevelop a set of “synthetic” profiles for the survey years with data that were not coincident with theCCSTWS-OC transect locations (typically the pre-1992 surveys). For the purposes of the Bolsa Chicamonitoring program, the same TIN model approach was used to “re-generate” the synthetic profilesused in the CCSTWS-OC. This approach was not necessary for the data that were coincident with thetransect locations (1992-1997 and 2002).The LIDAR data consist of densely spaced topographic points derived from an airborne survey. Thesedata encompass the entire shoreline of the Bolsa Chica study area but do not extend below thewaterline. Beach profiles were created at each of the five historical transects and the two newlyestablished transects using a TIN model developed from the LIDAR results.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 75

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportSynthetic profiles were also developed for the two newly established transects for March 2002 andseveral of the pre-1992 CCSTWS-OC survey dates. Using the same TIN model approach describedabove, synthetic profiles were created for each case when historical survey data bracketed the locationof the two newly established transects and at least one of the bracketing transects was not coincidentwith a historical transect. Profiles were generated for the following eight survey years: May 1963,July 1964, October 1966, April 1969, May 1973, April 1982, January 1983, and March 2002.Historical Beach Width MeasurementsUSACE personnel have acquired monthly beach width measurements along the Orange County coastsince 1977. Mr. Robert Clancy initiated this extensive data set. Since the late 1980’s, Mr. ChuckMesa of the Corps has continued the monthly data collection program.The data set contains measurements from a consistent back beach position to the break-in-slope at thebeach berm. The location of the berm does not represent a vertically-referenced shoreline (such as theMSL shoreline). The measurements, however, do provide an indication of gross changes in beachconfiguration. To differentiate these measurements from beach widths derived from profile data orfrom the beach width measurements colleted on behalf of the Bolsa Chica project, they will be referredto hereafter as “Corps beach widths”.Three of the measurement stations are located within or immediately adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Studyarea: 247+88, 308+88, and 424+44. These stations are not coincident with the transect locations usedfor the CCSTWS-OC or the Bolsa Chica monitoring program. The beach width measurements at thesestations were retrieved from the USACE (Mesa, 2008b).MethodologyBeach Profile SurveysBeach profile data were obtained on three occasions in 2007: January 16, May 8 and 11, and October16. The methods employed were similar to those used on previous Orange County surveys. Inconsequence, the results are directly comparable. The data acquisition and reduction methods aredescribed below.Two crews performed the wading and bathymetric portions of each survey concurrently, as illustratedin Figure 2-10. Data were acquired along each transect from the back beach to a depth ofapproximately 14 m below NAVD88. Wave heights typically were less than 1 m during each of thesurveys.The beach and surf zone were surveyed using a total station and a survey rodman. The total stationwas used to determine the position and elevation of the beach at each location occupied by the rodman.Each transect was surveyed from the back beach seaward through the surf zone until the survey rod nolonger protruded above the water surface when held erect. This location, typically in a water depth of3.0 to 3.5 m below NAVD88, provided substantial overlap with the landward portion of thebathymetric survey.Bathymetric data were collected with a digital acoustic echo sounder operated from a shallow-draftinflatable survey vessel. A dynamic motion sensor, which provides real-time corrections to the echosounder for wave-induced vessel heave, was also utilized. A GPS receiver was used to determine theposition of each sounding. To improve the accuracy of each position, differential correctionsMerkel & Associates, Inc. 76

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reporttransmitted in real-time from U.S. Coast Guard beacons were utilized (DGPS). All systems wereinterfaced to a laptop computer using the Hypack Max survey package.Figure 2-10. Beach Profile Survey Operations.The boat traveled along each transect from the offshore terminus to the surf zone guided by DGPSnavigation. Soundings were acquired on a continuous basis (approximately 3 soundings per second),while positions were recorded at 1-second intervals. The DGPS position data and sounding data weremerged using the Hypack software, with interpolated positions being assigned to the soundingsacquired between position fixes.The calibration of the echo sounder was checked at periodic intervals during the survey using astandard “bar check” procedure. In addition, calculations of the speed of sound in seawater were alsoperformed at the offshore end of each transect using a recording conductivity, temperature, and depth(CTD) instrument to obtain calculation variable data.The data from the wading portion of each survey were processed using software developed by Trimble.The software read the raw total station data, and the coordinates and elevation of each data point werecalculated and inserted into a CAD drawing.The raw data from the bathymetric portion of each survey consisted of Hypack files containing theposition data and heave-compensated soundings. These data were edited for outliers using the HypackSingle-Beam Processing Module. The dynamic motion sensor utilized during the survey removed themajority of the wave contamination from the record in real time. To further minimize the influence ofMerkel & Associates, Inc. 77

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportwave-induced vessel motion on several transects, however, a smooth line was faired through the echosounder record prior to digitizing it with the Hypack software package.Corrections for the draft of the transducer and the calculated speed of sound in ambient seawater thenwere applied to the measured depths. The speed-of-sound profiles were confirmed using the results ofthe “bar check” calibration procedure. Finally, the corrected soundings were adjusted to NAVD88datum using tide measurements made by the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, at Los AngelesHarbor. To provide a more accurate representation of local tide conditions, the water levels recordedat Los Angeles Harbor were adjusted to the project site using the time and height differences publishedby NOAA (NOS, 2007).The adjusted soundings were thinned to a nominal horizontal interval of 3 m to produce a file sizesuitable for developing beach profile plots. The resulting x, y, z data (easting, northing, and elevation)were inserted into the CAD drawing containing the wading data. As indicated above, the fieldworkwas conducted in such a manner as to provide substantial overlap between the wading and bathymetricportions of the survey. The processed data were examined in this region to insure that the two data setswere compatible. Once this confirmatory inspection had been completed, only the more detailed datain the region of overlap were retained (typically the bathymetric data). The less detailed data werepurged, after which the wading and bathymetric data were merged to create a single digital file.Based on past experience, the vertical accuracy of the processed soundings is approximately ±0.5 ft.According to the Hemisphere GPS equipment specifications, the accuracy of horizontal positionsobtained in the manner described above is less than 1.0 m. The electronic total station used to conductthe survey is capable of measuring ranges to within 15 cm and elevation differences to within 3 cm.Because the swimmer encountered waves and currents in the surf zone, however, the horizontalaccuracy perpendicular to each transect (parallel to the shoreline) varied from minimal at short rangesto approximately 5 m at the offshore end.Beach Width Measurement ProgramMonthly beach width measurements were acquired at each of the seven profile sites, commencing inJanuary 2007.The measurements were collected at tide heights ranging from -0.25 m to 1.90 m NAVD88. The beachwidth was recorded as the distance from a permanent point at the back beach to the approximateintersection of the still water line and the beach face. The foreshore slope also was measured andrecorded along with the date and time of the observation. The measurements then were adjusted toapproximate the MSL beach width using the foreshore slope and NOAA tide elevations. In addition,the distance from the back beach to the berm was measured. Although inherently less accurate thansurvey, the method provides a cost-effective means to supplement the more accurate MSL beachwidths derived from the semi-annual beach profile survey data.ResultsThe beach profile plots are provided in Appendix 2-B. MSL beach widths and sediment volume dataare presented in Appendices 2-C and 2-D, respectively. Appendix 2-E contains the beach widthmeasurements obtained for the Bolsa Chica monitoring program, while Appendix 2-F contains thosecollected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 78

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportBeach Profile PlotsThe 2007 beach profile data were used in conjunction with data from the historical surveys to createprofile plots and compute changes in beach width and sediment volume. The beach profile plotsdeveloped from the survey data are provided in Appendix 2-B. The range on each profile plotrepresents the distance in meters seaward of the survey origin measured along the transect 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 all of thebeach profile data available for each transect, while the second set of plots shows only those profilesobtained in during the two-year period encompassing the construction Bolsa Chica LowlandsRestoration Project (October 2005 to August 2007). The plots focusing on the recent two-year periodalso show the envelope of all available profile data that preceded the opening of the Bolsa Chicaentrance channel (May 1963 to March 2006). These plots also include two panels for each transect -one isolating the nearshore region of 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 was computedas the horizontal distance, in meters, between the landward edge of the beach sand and the point atwhich the beach profile intersected the plane of MSL Datum. In the Bolsa Chica area, MSL lies 0.79m above NAVD88. Notwithstanding the use of NAVD88 as the elevation reference for the profiledata, MSL was adopted as the shoreline reference in the belief that it provides a more accurateindicator of changes in beach configuration.Sediment VolumesSediment volume changes are provided in Appendix 2-D. The volume changes were computed alongeach transect for the entire width of the shorezone, and for that portion of the profile located aboveMSL (subaerial volume).The offshore boundary of the control volume for the beach above MSL was placed at the intersectionof the profile and a horizontal line corresponding to the elevation of MSL. The offshore boundary forthe shorezone was placed at the “statistical range of closure”. This parameter represents the distanceseaward of the transect origin, beyond which profile variations are smaller than the accuracy of thesurvey technique. As implied by its definition, the statistical range of closure was adopted as theoffshore boundary to separate the signal of true profile change from the noise of survey inaccuracy.The sea bottom elevation at the range of closure corresponds to the “depth of closure” or the depth atwhich sediment transport is not substantially affected by littoral processes.The statistical range of closure was determined for the five historical transects as part of the CCSTWS-OC. These boundaries, however, were no longer appropriate due to the profile changes that resulted atseveral locations from the placement of the ebb bar offshore of the Bolsa Chica entrance. As a result,the statistical range of closure was re-computed for each historical transect and for the two newtransects based on all available survey data collected since May 1963 (Table 2-5). The procedure usedto calculate the statistical range of closure for each transect was identical to that employed for theCCSTWS-OC (USACE, 2002).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 79

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportStatistical closure was assumed to occur at the point at which the standard deviation of all measuredelevations ceased to decrease in value. The procedure used to compute the point of statistical closureat each profile is summarized below:Sea bottom elevations were interpolated at 15.2-m range intervals along all selected profiles.The sample standard deviation of the interpolated elevations for all available survey profiles ()was calculated at each 15.2-m interval.Statistical closure was assumed to occur at the point at which 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 was placedat the landward edge of the beach sand.Beach Width MeasurementsThe results of the beach width measurements obtained by Moffatt and Nichol at the seven Bolsa Chicaarea transects are presented graphically in Appendix 2-E. The plots include the MSL beach width andthe horizontal distance from the back beach to the berm.The Corps beach widths, which consist of measurements from a consistent back beach position to thebreak-in-slope at the beach berm, are presented graphically in Appendix 2-F.DiscussionThe shoreline change assessment is based on the 44-year period between 1963 and 2007. Particularemphasis is placed on the two-year period encompassing the construction of the Bolsa Chica LowlandsRestoration Project (October 2005 to August 2007). This two-year period will be referred to as the“Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period”. The project components that influence coastal changes includeplacing approximately 929,326 m 3 (1,214,579 y 3 ) of sand in an ebb bar located offshore of the entranceMerkel & Associates, Inc. 80

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportchannel 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 2006 andestablishing tidal exchange at the entrance channel in August 2006.As indicated previously, the beaches along the Bolsa Chica study area has regularly benefited from thedowndrift dispersal of the Surfside-Sunset nourishment material. A comprehensive account of thecoastal changes in the area during the 34-year period between 1963 and 1997 can be found in theCCSTWS-OC (USACE, 2002).Profile ChangesLong-Term Profile Changes (1963 to 2007): The above-water beach profiles obtained in 2007 areeach near or seaward of the upper bound of the historical profile envelope at six of the seven BolsaChica area transects. The exception was Transect 378+29, located at Huntington Cliffs. Thesefindings are consistent with the long-term trend of beach width and sediment volume gainsidentified in the CCSTWS-OC for the Bolsa Chica study area. Of the five historical transects, theaccretion trend was absent only at Transect 378+29.Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period Changes (2005 to 2007): During the two-year Bolsa ChicaMonitoring Period, significant above-water profile accretion occurred at the three transects locatednorth of the entrance channel (249+30, 311+22, and 318+30). Similar gains also occurred at thesouthernmost transect (423+89). At Transect 330+30, modest above-water profile gains wereevident seaward of the berm near the back beach. In contrast, the above-water beach at Transects350+71 and 378+29 was characterized by modest erosion or stability. The volume gains at the twotransects located adjacent to the entrance channel (318+30 and 333+30) are likely attributable tothe beach nourishment placed in Summer 2006. The onshore migration of the material placed inthe ebb bar also may have contributed to the gains in the region.Offshore Ebb Bar: Approximately 929,326 m 3 of sand was placed in an ebb bar located offshore ofthe Bolsa Chica entrance channel between November 2005 and May 2006. This bar is evident inthe 2007 profiles at Transects 311+22, 318+30 and 333+30. The profiles obtained during 2007indicate that the ebb bar was relatively stable during this period. The most significant changeswere isolated to depths above 4 m.Beach Width Changes2007 Beach Widths: Figure 2-11 shows the beach widths in the Bolsa Chica study area at the timeof the May 2007 and October 2007 surveys. The figure also includes the range of Fall and Springbeach widths for all available data. At the time of the May 2007 survey, beach widths ranged from28 m at Transect 378+29 to 107 m at Transect 423+89. The greatest beach width at the time of theOctober 2007 survey was 113 m (Transect 423+89), while the narrowest beach width was 41 m(Transect 378+29). Both the May and October 2007 beach widths were near or above theirrespective historical beach width envelopes. This finding is consistent with the long-term trend ofshoreline advance identified in the CCSTWS-OC.Long-Term Shoreline Changes (1963 to 2007): The time series plots in Appendix 2-C indicate atrend of long-term shoreline advance at six of the seven Bolsa Chica area transects during the 44-Merkel & Associates, Inc. 81

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportyear period between 1963 and 2007. The exception was Transect 378+29, where beach widthswere relatively stable during this period with no apparent trend.Figure 2-11. May 2007 and October 2007 Beach Widths.Figure 2-12 shows the net long-term beach width changes in the Bolsa Chica study area between May1963 and May 2007. To avoid a seasonal bias, the comparison utilizes the May 2007 survey ratherthan the more recent October 2007 survey. Shoreline advance predominated, with gains ranging from16 m at Transect 350+71 to 65 m at Transect 318+30. Shoreline retreat occurred at only one location,a loss of 6 m at Transect 378+29.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 82

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportFigure 2-12. Long-Term Beach Width Changes, May 1963 to May 2007.Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period Shoreline Changes (2005 to 2007): Beach width changes betweenOctober 2005 and October 2007 are shown in Figure 2-13. During the two-year periodencompassing the construction of the restoration project, the shoreline advanced at the threetransects located north of the entrance channel (249+30, 311+22, and 318+30). The greatest gain,22 m, occurred at Transect 311+22. Shoreline retreat predominated at the survey sites locatedsouth of the entrance channel. Beach widths decreased by approximately 7 m at Transects 333+30,350+71, and 423+89. The only occurrence of shoreline advance in the region south of the entrancechannel was 4 m at Transect 378+29.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 83

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportBolsa Chica State BeachCityof Huntington Beach80249+30311+22318+30333+30350+71378+29423+8970Beach Width Change (m)6050403020100-10-200 1 2 3 4 5 6Alongshore Distance (km)Figure 2-13. Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period Shoreline Changes, October 2005 to October 2007.Sediment Volume ChangesLong-Term Subaerial Volume Changes (1963 to 2007): The long-term subaerial volume trends(Appendix 2-D) were similar to the long-term shoreline changes. Volume gains occurred at six ofthe seven Bolsa Chica area transects during the 44-year period between 1963 and 2007. Theexception was Transect 378+29, where subaerial volumes were relatively stable during this periodwith no apparent trend. Figure 2-14, which shows the net long-term subaerial volume changesbetween May 1963 and May 2007, bears a striking resemblance to Figure 2-11 (showing shorelinechanges for the same period).Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period Subaerial Volume Changes (2005 to 2007): Subaerial volumechanges during the two-year Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period are shown in Figure 2-15. Thevolume changes north of the channel were very similar to the beach width changes. In contrast tothe predominance of shoreline retreat south of the entrance channel, subaerial volume loss occurredat only one transect in this region. This apparent discrepancy at Transect 333+30 (immediatelysouth of the entrance channel) can be explained by the erosion of the beach between the waterlineand the berm (resulting in shoreline retreat) accompanied by stability from the berm to the backbeach (preserving the volume of sand nourishment placed in this area). The volume gains atMerkel & Associates, Inc. 84

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 423+89 occurred between the berm and the waterline. Because the beach face becamesteeper in October 2007, however, the MSL shoreline position was more landward than in October2005.Figure 2-14. Long-Term Subaerial Volume Changes, May 1963 to October 2007.Long-Term Shorezone Volume Changes (1963 to 2007): As described previously, the shorezoneencompasses the entire littoral zone from the back beach to the depth of closure. Figure 2-16shows the net long-term shorezone volume changes between May 1963 and October 2007 at eachof the Bolsa Chica area transects. The comparison utilizes the May 1963 and October 2007surveys because the shorezone volume is not subject to seasonal bias. Shorezone volume gainsprevailed at each of the seven Bolsa Chica area transects. The gains ranged from 129 m 3 /m atTransect 378+29 to 1189 m 3 /m at Transect 318+30.The shorezone volume gains reflect not only the influence of the Surfside/Sunset nourishmentactivities, but also the ebb bar that was placed offshore of the entrance channel as part of therestoration project. The ebb bar, which was created by placing approximately 929,326 m 3 of sandoffshore, is evident in the 2007 profiles at Transects 311+22, 318+30 and 333+30. The time seriesplot in Appendix 2-D shows substantial volume gains at each of these transects between 2002 and2007.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 85

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Report(Note: It is not possible to assess the shorezone volume changes for the Bolsa Chica Monitoringperiod because the October 2005 profile does not extend below the waterline.)Figure 2-15. Bolsa Chica Monitoring Period Subaerial Volume Changes, Oct. 2005 to Oct. 2007.Beach Width MeasurementTime series plots for the beach width measurements obtained by Moffatt and Nichol at the seven BolsaChica area transects and at three nearby locations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are presentedin 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 11-month period between the January and Decemberobservations, the MSL beach width decreased at one of the seven sites, increased at four locations, andwas essentially unchanged (3 m or less) at the remaining two sites. The greatest shoreline advance was17 m, and occurred immediately north of the entrance channel at Transect 318+30. The onlyoccurrence of shoreline retreat was a loss of 8 m immediately south of the Bolsa Chica entrancechannel at Transect 333+30.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 86

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportFigure 2-16. Long-Term Shorezone Volume Changes, May 1963 to October 2007.Table 2-6. Beach Width Measurement Program Summary Statistics, Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2007.Transect Distance to Berm (m) MSL Beach Width (m)RangeAveChangeJan-Dec 2007RangeAveChangeJan-Dec 2007249+30 52-86 72 14 80-110 90 12311+22 34-67 56 4 69-85 75 9318+30 64-72 68 -2 68-95 79 17333+30 38-49 40 -10 53-70 61 -8350+71 35-45 38 -2 46-56 49 2378+29 0-12 6 0 10-31 23 15423+89 84-101 88 4 98-109 103 2Merkel & Associates, Inc. 87

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportThe Bolsa Chica Monitoring Plan (USFWS, 2001b) defined beach nourishment triggers based on themonthly beach width observations at the Corps measurement sites within the study area. Theminimum permitable beach width based on two consecutive monthly measurements was stipulated tobe 15.2 m (50 ft). A second condition indicated that the 12-month rolling average beach width couldnot deviate from the long-term mean beach width (based on the period January 1980 to January 2000)by more than two standard deviations. Table 2-7 shows the beach width statistics for the three Corpsmeasurement sites within the study that were provided in the monitoring plan.Table 2-7. Beach Width Measurement Program Summary Statistics, Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2007.StationBerm Width (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 2-17, 2-18, and 2-19 show the long-term rolling average berm width from October 2006 (preproject)to December 2007 at each of the three Corps measurement sites within the study area. Thetime series plots also show the minimum stipulated berm width (15.2 m), the long-term mean bermwidth, and a shaded area encompassing two standard deviations above and below the long-term meanberm width.The 12-month rolling average 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 rollingaverage berm width exceeded two standard deviations above the long-term mean. At no location,however, was the 12-month rolling average berm width less than two standard deviations below thelong-term mean.Figure 2-17. Twelve -Month Average Berm Width at Corps Station 247+88.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 88

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportFigure 2-18. Twelve -Month Average Berm Width at Corps Station 307+88.Figure 2-19. Twelve-Month Average Berm Width at Corps Station 424+44.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 89

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportInfluence of Entrance ChannelShoreline Changes Adjacent to Entrance Channel: Between October 2005 and October 2007, thebeaches upcoast (north) of the new entrance channel accreted, while those downcoast (south) of thechannel tended to erode (Figure 2-13). Figure 2-20 compares the shoreline changes immediatelynorth of the channel (Transect 318+30) to the changes for the remaining upcoast monitoring sites(Transects 249+30 and 311+12). The shoreline at the three upcoast transects responded similarlybetween October 2005 and January 2007. Following the opening of the new channel (January2007 to October 2007), the shoreline at Transect 318+30 retreated slightly, while the beaches at theother upcoast sites advanced.A time series of the shoreline changes at the four transects located downcoast (south) of theentrance channel is shown in Figure 2-21. The shoreline changes at Transect 333+30 (immediatelydowndrift of the channel) were nearly identical to those at Transects 350+71 and 423+89. Theshoreline changes at Transect 378+29 differed only modestly and indicate progressive shorelineadvance between March 2006 and October 2007.Volume Changes Adjacent to Entrance Channel: The subaerial volume changes upcoast of theentrance channel (Figure 2-22) responded similarly to the shoreline changes. Volume gainsoccurred throughout the period at Transects 249+30 and 311+22. The sediment volume initiallyincreased at Transect 318+30 (adjacent to the entrance channel), but losses prevailed after May2007.Downcoast of the entrance channel, modest subaerial volume gains occurred at three of the fourtransects (Figure 2-23). As discussed previously, the volume gains at Transect 333+30 appear tobe attributable to the preservation of the nourishment material placed landward of the berm despitethe loss of beach width. The most significant volume losses in the downcoast region occurred atTransect 333+30 (adjacent to the entrance channel) between January 2007 and October 2007.Because this period followed the opening of the entrance channel, particular vigilance is warrantedat this site during future monitoring activities. (Note: It is not possible to assess the shorezonevolume changes for the Bolsa Chica Monitoring period because the October 2005 profile does notextend below the waterline.)Sediment Trapping in the Full Tidal Basin: As indicated in Section 2.1, approximately 198,000 m 3of sediment was deposited in the lagoon during the 17-month period between August 2006 andJanuary 2008 (equivalent to approximately 140,000 m 3 /y). While a small fraction of this materialmay have resulted from redistribution of basin sediments or aeolian processes, nearly all of thesediment has entered the basin from the ocean. It is probable that the high shoaling rate is atransient effect attributable to inlet stabilization; drawing locally from the pre-filled ebb bar andwidened beaches adjacent to the inlet. Nevertheless, the shoaling rate is 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). As a result, particularattention is warranted in monitoring the flood shoal accumulation rates and beach profiles overtime.In the event that trapping rates detected during the initial post-opening are not transitory, theserates are of a significant magnitude to be of major concern to longshore transport in the littoral cell.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 90

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportIf left unchecked 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 loss ofsand downcoast. To compensate for anticipated short-term sediment losses from the littoral budgetdue to the natural formation of an ebb bar, initial lagoon shoaling, and fillet formation along thejetties, the ebb bar located offshore of the entrance channel was pre-filled, and supplemental sandwas placed as beach nourishment adjacent to the channel at the time of construction. These prefillswere intended to minimize littoral sand loss to ebb bar formation and provide supplementalsand for early inlet stabilization. In addition, the long-term project sediment management planprovides for periodic down-coast beach nourishment using sediment derived from the FTB duringmaintenance dredging operations. This bypassing operation essentially restores the sediment lostfrom the littoral budget to the downdrift beaches over the long-term. The first such maintenancedredging is planned for Fall 2008. Taken together, these measures are anticipated to maintain thehistorical supply of sediment to the beaches located south of the entrance channel.Figure 2-20. Shoreline Changes at Upcoast Transects, October 2005 to October 2007.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 91

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportFigure 2-21. Shoreline Changes at Downdrift Transects, October 2005 to October 2007.Figure 2-22. Subaerial Volume Changes at Upcoast Transects, October 2005 to October 2007.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 92

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportFigure 2-23. Subaerial Volume Changes at Downcoast Transects, October 2005 to October 2007.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 93

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportIII. MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROGRAMThe maintenance dredging program is planned as a sand management action to maintain “no net” lossof sand to the downcoast beaches as required in the EIR/EIS and project permits, as well as to ensurethe vitality of the tidal system. Sand will be removed from the flood shoal of the FTB within theoriginal dredging footprint in a region that can extend from the tidal inlet through the basin toapproximately the position of the Freeman Creek culvert. The final area may be slightly larger orsmaller depending on shoaling patterns determined from pre-dredge surveys. Sand dredged from thelagoon will be placed at the beach or nearshore areas based on the results of beach monitoring as wellas a consideration of the volume of material to be dredged.Preliminary engineering studies (M&N 1999) and the Basis of Design Report (M&N 2003) estimatedthe quantity of sand that would accrete in the lagoon would be the order of 230,000 m 3 (300,000 yd 3 )every 2 years. Maintenance dredging includes provisions for dredging deeper than the original dredgedepth but within originally permitted dredge depths. This could add as much as 400,000 m 3 (550,000yd 3 ) of dredging. This additional advance maintenance quantity would provide a longer intervalbetween dredging cycles if it were implemented.3.1 DREDGING TRIGGERSThe following parameters were monitored and analyzed to evaluate the functioning of the system anddetermine when dredging should be performed. Some of these parameters have established dredgingtriggers associated with them, as indicated, while others have thresholds that were established by themonitoring team, based on the need to sustain the biological and hydrological functioning of thesystem.Tidal 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 based on the BiologicalMonitoring and Follow-up Plan (USFWS, 2001).Beach WidthFlood shoal dredging should occur if any beach is found to be narrower than 50 feet, based on twoconsecutive monthly beach width measurements, and/or if any 12-month rolling average of beachwidths which deviate more than 2 standard deviations from the mean beach width, using 20 yearhistoric record to establish these means and standard deviations based on the Beach MonitoringPlan (USFWS, 2001).Loss of Subtidal HabitatThe flood shoal should be dredged if a 10% decrease in habitat acreage occurs based on the Basisof Design Report (M&N, 2003).Closure RiskThe flood shoal should be dredged if it is determined that the inlet is at risk of closure in a singlestorm scenario due to the localized shoaling pattern (Monitoring Team determination).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 94

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMuted 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 muted tidal basinwill help determine the dredging trigger related to tidal drainage in the MTBs (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 time of afew days. The water quality will degrade if the inlet is closed. At present, the large size of the FTBand the significant wave fetch is believed to be adequate to sustain good water quality even inhighly muted conditions. However, substantial deviations in water quality parameters that suggestisolation from strong oceanic influences should trigger dredging of the flood shoal (MonitoringTeam determination).3.2 TRIGGER ANALYSISAnalysis of Tidal Muting TriggerA review of the tidal ranges in the FTB and LAOH indicates that the differences in the high tideelevations are very small. This implies that the overall measurement is reliable and there is no mutingof the high tides. The low tides are muted and level of muting is due to flood bar accretion in the basin.The muting is similar to what was predicted, with the following specific observations:Tidal muting is positively correlated with tidal range, with greater muting occurring duringspring tides and less muting occurring during neap tides;The trend of tidal muting is for gradually increased muting over time, with the greaterpunctuated increases and reductions in muting that are likely coincident with significantchanges in flow patterns across the flood shoal;The amount of muting shown in Table 2-3 is increasing over the time as the flood shoalexpands and grows in the FTB.Tidal plots in the Appendix 2-A and low tidal muting in Table 2-3 1 show tidal muting on theorder of 0.4 meters (1.31 feet) of the low tide for average spring tides over a period of fourmonths (October 2007 through January 2008).The spring low tide reached -0.155 m (-0.51 ft) in December 2007 and January 2008, whichstill would provide the opportunity for the MTB to drain efficiently.After monitoring of the tides in the muted tidal basin, the dredging trigger related to tidesshould be re-evaluated to provide sufficient drainage in the MTB.Recommendations relating to this dredging trigger are currently considered preliminary in nature asthe muting of the system effects the functioning of the MTBs, which have yet to be opened. As aresult, final dredging triggers relating to tidal muting should only be set after opportunities exist tomonitor the performance of the MTBs under normal and muted conditions. However, preliminaryrecommendations are as follows:Merkel & Associates, Inc. 95

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportModify the expectations of tidal range from 2.75 meters (9.0 feet) to 2.29 meters (7.5 feet),with revised expected tidal elevations of 2.02 meters (6.62 feet) to -0.27 meters (-0.88 feet)relative to NAVD.Remove the dredge trigger of the Mean Low Tide muting of 0.15 meters (0.5 feet). Monitortides in the MTBs to clarify maintenance dredging triggers related to tides.Continue the tidal monitoring program with frequent reporting to show effects of the firstmaintenance dredging event and to assess the relationship between flood bar shoaling and tidalmuting.Remove the flood shoal as scheduled to reduce the tidal muting effects.Analysis of Beach Width TriggerThe Bolsa Chica Monitoring Plan defined beach nourishment triggers based on the monthly beachwidth observations at the USACE measurement sites within the study area. The minimum permittablebeach width based on two consecutive monthly measurements was stipulated to be 15.2 m (50 ft). Asecond condition indicated that the 12-month rolling average beach width could not deviate from thelong-term mean beach width (based on the period January 1980 to January 2000) by more than twostandard deviations.Figures 2-17, 2-18, and 2-19 show the long-term rolling average berm width from October 2006 (preproject)to December 2007 at each of the three USACE measurement sites within the study area. Thetime series plots of the monitoring data also show the minimum stipulated berm width (15.2 m) (red),the long-term mean berm width (green), and a red shaded area encompassing two standard deviationsabove and below the long-term mean berm width.The 12-month rolling average berm width remained well 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 rollingaverage berm width exceeded two standard deviations above the long-term mean. The 12-monthrolling average berm width was never less than two standard deviations below the long-term meanduring 2007. Given the beach width criteria it is not expected that beach erosion will trigger the needfor maintenance dredging and replenishment as long as the Surfside-Sunset nourishment programcontinues.Analysis of Subtidal Habitat TriggerThe flood shoal volume, the area of shoaling, and shoaling rate all have occurred similar to processespredicted during the project design. Maintenance dredging should occur as recommended in the designas well. A recommended maintenance dredge trigger is the reduction of intertidal habitat area. TheBasis of Design Report (M&N 2003) indicates that dredging should occur when habitat reductionreaches 10%. However, this criterion is probably too restrictive and should be reconsidered. Previousanalyses as part of preliminary engineering studies show a rapid loss of 10% habitat within 1.3 years,and a subsequent habitat loss reaching 24% after 2 years (M&N 1999) at the predicted shoaling rate.A two-year maintenance dredge frequency would be appropriate considering measured versuspredicted shoaling volumes, tidal muting, and habitat loss. A revised dredge trigger based on habitatloss should be when 24% of low intertidal habitat converts to subtidal habitat or when 24% of thesubtidal basin is lost to intertidal flood shoaling near the ocean inlet. In either condition, the habitatfunctionality is considered to be impaired from the initial design objectives.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 96

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAnalysis of Closure Risk TriggerThe Closure Risk trigger is not specifically defined or quantified, but is presented as an opinion of riskdue to the shoaling pattern of the inlet. A review of the bathymetric changes at the inlet shows that themajor cross-sectional flow area varies by season and is presently located within a very narrow thalwegon the southern side of the inlet (Figure 2-2). Based on the quantity of material passing through theinlet and the apparent narrowing of the thalweg, it is prudent to recommend dredging to prevent aclosure of the inlet in a large storm event, especially since there is no mechanism for re-opening theinlet if it closes.Of greatest concern relative to an episodic closure event are large accumulations of sand within theinlet channel, high and over-steepened channel banks, and a sinuous course of flow between high sandbars or adjacent to the armored shoreline. In such cases as these, a major storm event combined with aweak neap tide series could lead to either full or partial closure of the mouth. This could then result inloss of drainage and rising water levels within the MTBs.A conditions necessary to cause a catastrophic closure event have not yet materialized, however,response to such an occurrence should be included in emergency planning contingencies.Muted Tidal Basin FunctionThe trigger statement of “A tidal muting of the average low tide elevations (Mean Low Water) on theorder of 0.5 feet would indicate that the flood shoal maintenance dredging was warranted” needs to bemodified since the Mean Low Water in the FTB is unlikely to be ever be muted before the MTBdrainage requirements fail. The spring low tide should be used as the parameter to gage the muting inthe FTB. The drainage efficiency of the MTBs together with the MTB function should be one of thetriggers considered for maintenance since the drainage efficiency can be modified to a certain degreeby limiting the intake water volume. The west MTB was connected to the FTB on March 5, 2008 andthus no data are yet available to begin to explore the relationship between the FTB tidal environmentand that of the MTBs. The dredging trigger related to tidal muting will likely be driven almost entirelyby the drainage performance of the MTBs and thus these parameters will be set and adjusted over timeas the MTBs are sequentially brought on line.3.3 DREDGE TRIGGERS - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSFlood shoaling has occurred within the FTB at a two-year rate that is nearly precisely as predicted witha greater rate of shoaling in Year 1 and a lesser rate of shoaling in Year 2 than expected. The shoalgeometry is also generally as expected. The scheduled maintenance dredging is expected to removethe volume predicted at the frequency planned. For this reason, there is no reason not proceed with themaintenance dredging as scheduled.In reviewing the established dredging triggers, it is clear that some of the triggers may never be metexcept under extreme circumstances, while more significant triggers may exist that have not as yetbeen quantified. Chronic beach erosion triggers are not likely to be met because of the ongoingreplenishment at Surfside-Sunset and the program’s effect on long-term beach growth trends.Similarly, acute erosion triggers are not likely to be met due to the generally broad beach profiles attrigger point transects. This is not to say that beaches would not benefit from replenishment with floodshoal sand bypass. Rather, it acknowledges that beach erosion is not likely to occur to the extent thatwould trigger an obligatory maintenance-dredging event for replenishment purposes.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 97

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportIt is more likely that maintenance dredging will be required to address an intrinsic system need relatedto the functionality of the MTB tidal control structures. These triggers will need to be set once theMTBs are open to the FTB.At the present time, the following preliminary recommendations are made. Additional adjustments todredging triggers are anticipated in response to future performance analysis of the MTBs andadditional analysis of shoaling after the first maintenance dredging cycle is completed.Modify the expectations of tidal range from 2.75 meters (9.0 feet) to 2.29 meters (7.5 feet), withrevised expected tidal elevations of 2.02 meters (6.62 feet) to -0.27 meters (-0.88 feet) relative toNAVD.Remove the dredge trigger of the Mean Low Tide muting of 0.152 meters (0.5 feet). Monitor tidesin the MTBs to clarify maintenance dredging triggers related to tides in those areas.Continue the tidal monitoring program to show effects of the first maintenance-dredging event andto assess the relationship between flood bar shoaling and tidal muting.Remove the flood shoal in Fall 2008 as scheduled since effects of the flood shoal impede the tidalebbing from the entire site.The beach width dredging trigger should be modified to reflect a more current set of beach widthdata that includes the effects of the 2002 Surfside-Sunset nourishment. In addition, the triggershould indicate that dredging should be performed when the beach width is less than two standarddeviations from the mean beach width, since being greater than two standard deviations does notindicate a need for dredging.Consider modifying the dredge trigger of habitat loss to be 24% as estimated in the preliminaryengineering studies (M&N, 1999) rather than 10% as specified in the Basis of Design Report.Consider dredging to the permitted depth of the final engineering design depths to extend theperiod between maintenance events. Dredging at the time of construction was not completed tofull design depths within the maintenance basin.Continue bathymetric monitoring, and anticipate another maintenance dredging event in two years.3.4 MAINTENANCE DREDGING PLANAt the present time, the first maintenance-dredging event is in the planning and engineering phaseswith an anticipated start of dredging being September 2008 and a completion of dredging prior toMarch 15, 2009. The dredging is restricted to occur during the non-breeding season for endangeredbirds: between September 1 and March 15 of any year.The first two dredging events have been incorporated into the original project permits, including theCorps of Engineers Clean Water Act, section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act, section 10 permit asMerkel & Associates, Inc. 98

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual Reportwell as the Coastal Consistency Determination issued by the California Coastal Commission. Rightof-entrypermits will be required from the California State Parks Department and City of HuntingtonBeach.The total accreted sand shoal volume from August 2006 until January 2008 is approximately 198,000m 3 (260,000 cy) and it is anticipated that the total volume will be on the order of 230,000 m 3 (300,000cy) by the time of the first maintenance dredging. In addition, the maintenance-dredging plan also hasa provision for dredging deeper than the original construction depth and remaining within theauthorized project depths. This could add as much as 400,000 m 3 (550,000 cy) of potential dredging.The draft maintenance dredging plan is presented in Figure 3-1. The final quantity to be dredged willbe a function of the funds available for this maintenance cycle and the actual accretion volume andlocation within the basin. The present dredging schedule is outlined as follows:Dredge Plans30% March 31, 200890% April 30, 2008Final May 31, 2008PermitsUSACE, State Lands, State Parks March-June 2008Bidding and AwardBid Package June 2008Advertise June 2008Contracting July-August 2008Mobilization September 2008Completion March 2009Merkel & Associates, Inc. 99

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure 3-1. Draft Maintenance Dredging Plan.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 100

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportREFERENCESAllen, B. J. and S.L. Williams. 2003. Native eelgrass Zostera marina controls growth and reproductionof an invasive mussel through food limitation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 254: 57-67.Cailliet, G.M. 2000. Biological Characteristics of Nearshore Fishes of California: A Review ofExisting Knowledge and Proposed Additional Studies for the Pacific Ocean InterjurisdictionalFisheries Management Plan Coordination and Development Project. Prepared for Pacific StatesMarine Fisheries Commission.Coastal Frontiers. 2007a. Bolsa Chica January 2007 Beach Profile Survey, letter report prepared forMerkel and Associates, 8 pp + attachments.Coastal Frontiers. 2007b. Bolsa Chica May 2007 Beach Profile Survey, letter report prepared forMerkel and Associates, 8 pp + attachments.Coastal Frontiers. 2007c. Bolsa Chica October 2007 Beach Profile Survey, letter report prepared forMerkel and Associates, 9 pp + attachments.Ehrlich, K.F., G.E. McGowen, and G. Muszynski. 1978. Temperature selection by young topsmelt:laboratory and field investigations. In: Energy and environmental stress in aquatic systems:selected papers from a symposium held in Augusta, Georgia, November 2-4, 1977. NationalTechnical 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 of fishesand invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Volume II: Species life history summaries. ELMR ReportNo 8. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. Rockville, MD, 329 pp.Fancher, 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. February2007 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. December2005 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. January 200525pp.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. January 200422pp.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. December2002. 23pp.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 101

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportFancher, 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. February2002. 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, Carlsbad Office.February 2001. 34pp.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. 1998. Western snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California. 1997. Areport of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Office. April 1998. 22pp.Holland RF. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of terrestrial natural communities of California. State ofCalifornia, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 156 pp.Knapp, P., B. Peterson, and J. Fancher. 2007. Final Report. Western snowy plover nesting at BolsaChica, Orange County, California 2007. December 2007 22pp.Knapp, P., and Kelly O’Reilly. 2007. 2007 Breeding Season for the California Least Tern, Sternulaantillarum browni, at Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. California Department of Fish andGame. November 7, 2007.Massey, B. W. 1979. The Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, DACW0978-C-0008, Los Angeles.Merkel And Associates, Inc. 2003. Habitat Classification for: Inventory and Evaluation of Habitatsand Other Environmental Resources in the San Diego Region’s Nearshore Coastal Zone.California Coastal Conservancy and San Diego Association of Governments. Revised: November26, 2003.Merkel And Associates, Inc. 2002.Mesa, Chuck. 2008a. personal communication by e-mail on February 7, 2008.Mesa, Chuck. 2008b. personal communication by e-mail on February 5, 2008.Moffatt & Nichol. 2003. Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project Basis of Design Final Report.August, 2003.Moffatt & Nichol. 1999. Final Report, Preliminary Engineering Inlet Studies for Bolsa Chica WetlandsRestoration. December 1999.National Ocean Service (NOS). 2007. Center for Operation Oceanographic Products and Services.http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 102

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. Coastal Services Center.http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/TCM/.Powell, A. N. and C. L. Collier. 1998. Reproductive Success of Belding’s Savannah Sparrows in aHighly Fragmented Landscape. The Auk 115(2): 508-513.Thomson, J.M. 1963. Synopsis of biological data on the grey mullet Mugil cephalus Linnaeus 1758.CSIRO Fisheries and Oceanography Fisheries Synopsis No.1(1-8).U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002. Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study -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 Beach MonitoringPlan.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, HabitatConservation Planning Branch, Species Conservation and Recovery Program Report 2006-03,Sacramento, CA. 15pp.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 103

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-A. YEAR 1 FIELD SURVEY DATESMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportYear 1 field survey dates.WATER QUALITY MONITORINGOctober ’07 Monitoring Quarter October 10, 2007 Two units deployed for 30 daysVEGETATION MONITORINGYear 1 Monitoring January 16, 2007 Aerial imagery collectedYear 1 Monitoring March 2007 Vegetation map ground-truthingFISHERIES MONITORINGOctober ’07 Monitoring Quarter Oct. 16 & Nov. 8, 2007 Fisheries samplingAVIAN MONITORING2007 Sensitive Species Nesting Season March to Sept. 2007 SNPL and LETE monitoring2007 Nesting Season April 9 and 16, 2007 Belding’s Sav. Sparrow SurveyOctober ’07 General Bird Survey October 17 & 18, 2007 Full survey of site for all speciesDecember ’07 General Bird Survey December 3 & 4, 2007 Full survey of site for all speciesINLET BATHYMETRIC MONITORINGWinter 2006/2007 Survey January 19, 2007 Bathymetric survey of inletSummer 2007 Survey June 22 & July 3, 2007 Bathymetric survey of inletWinter 2007/2008 Survey January 20, 2008* Bathymetric survey of inletTIDAL MONITORING2007 Survey Dec 21, ‘06 to Dec 31, ‘07 FTB only, continuous loggingBEACH MONITORINGJanuary 2007 Beach Width Survey January 19, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredFebruary 2007 Beach Width Survey February 20, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredMarch 2007 Beach Width Survey March 20, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredApril 2007 Beach Width Survey April 20, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredMay 2007 Beach Width Survey May 22, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredJune 2007 Beach Width Survey June 21, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredJuly 2007 Beach Width Survey July 20, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredAugust 2007 Beach Width Survey August 16. 2007 7 Sites MeasuredSeptember 2007 Beach Width Survey September 21, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredOctober 2007 Beach Width Survey October 19, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredNovember 2007 Beach Width Survey November 21, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredDecember 2007 Beach Width Survey December 22, 2007 7 Sites MeasuredWinter 2006/2007 Beach Profile January 16, 2007 Profile Survey - 7 TransectsSpring 2007 Beach Profile May 8-11, 2007 Profile Survey - 7 TransectsFall 2007 Beach Profile October 16, 2007 Profile Survey - 7 Transects*Reporting in the present report to provide data on July-December 2007.Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-B. SAMPLING LOCATION COORDINATESMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Sampling Location CoordinatesCalifornia State Plane, Zone 6, NAD 83, MetersEQUIPMENT STATION AND REPLICATE ID X YPurse 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 1,834,463.48 669,923.39Beach Seine Pocket Marsh Rep 1 1,833,710.06 672,144.96Pocket 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 1,834,520.64 670,639.78

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-C. CORDGRASS AND EELGRASS TRANSPLANT PHOTO COLLAGEMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Cordgrass Transplant in Bolsa Chica Full Tidal Basin - August 2007Establishing transplant transectsHarvesting cordgrass to transplantTransects were established throughoutthe FTB, set up with lines marked everymeter for systematic planting. Transplantlocations were tracked using GPS.Transplanting at Bolsa ChicaA large team ofvolunteersassembled tolearn thecordgrasstransplantingprotocol.Planting techniquesDifferent transplant techniques were utilized, including plantingcordrass from pots or as bareroot stems, with full length leavesor with leaves cut to shorter lengths.A team of volunteers led by CDFG harvested cordgrass from Newport Bay.As many as 13volunteers fromCDFG, OCConservation Corps,and the Bolsa ChicaEcological Reservejoined M&A staff toplant 0.7 acre in 14areas.Bolsa Chica locals admire the new cordgrass.

Eelgrass Transplant in Bolsa Chica Full Tidal Basin - August 2007Harvesting eelgrass to transplantPreparing eelgrass for transplantA team of NOAA and CDFGvolunteer divers joined M&Ato harvest eelgrass from thePort of Los Angeles.As many as 15 volunteers from USFWS, CDFG, OCConservation Corps, and the Bolsa Chica EcologicalReserve joined M&A staff to process the collectedeelgrass into transplant units.Transplanting at Bolsa ChicaA team of divers from CDFG and NOAA worked with M&A to plant 0.85 acre of eelgrass in 15 areas.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-D. AVIAN GUILDSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Avian Guilds (October 2007)Aerial Fish ForagersCoots and RailsDabbling Ducks/GeeseDiving Ducks/Grebes/CormorantsGullsHeronsRaptorsShorebirdsBelted KingfisherBlack SkimmerBrown PelicanCaspian TernElegant TernForster's TernWhite PelicanAmerican CootAmerican WigeonBlue-winged TealGadwallMallardNorthern PintailNorthern ShovelerBuffleheadClark's GrebeDouble-crested CormorantEared GrebeHorned GrebeRuddy DuckUnidentified ScaupWestern GrebeRing-billed GullUnidentified GullWestern GullBlack-crowned Night HeronGreat Blue HeronGreat EgretSnowy EgretAmerican KestrelBurrowing OwlOspreyPeregrine FalconRed-tailed HawkWhite-tailed KiteAmerican AvocetBlack-necked StiltCommon SnipeDunlinGreater YellowlegsKilldeerLeast SandpiperLesser YellowlegsMarbled GodwitRed KnotRed Phalarope

Shorebirds (cont'd)Upland birdsRuddy TurnstoneSanderlingSemipalmated PloverUnidentified DowitcherUnidentified SandpiperUnidentified YellowlegsWestern SandpiperWhimbrelWilletAllen's HummingbirdAmerican CrowAmerican GoldfinchAnna's HummingbirdBarn SwallowBewick's WrenBlack PhoebeBlack-necked StiltBlue-gray gnatcatcherBrown-headed CowbirdCliff SwallowCommon RavenCommon YellowthroatEuropean StarlingGreat-tailed GrackleHouse FinchHouse WrenLesser GoldfinchMarsh WrenMourning DoveNorthern Rough-winged SwallowRed-winged BlackbirdRock PigeonSavannah SparrowSay's PhoebeSong SparrowUnidentified GnatcatcherUnidentified HummingbirdUnidentified SparrowUnidentified SwallowVaux's SwiftViolet-green SwallowWestern MeadowlarkWhite-crowned SparrowYellow-rumped Warbler

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-E. BELDING’S SAVANNAH SPARROW TERRITORIAL BEHAVIORSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

5066474948466869454241704039386371723029 3119 28201432272133262534373536913222423BehaviorPair732101112Song (perched)Territory by chasePerched male0 100 200 400 600 800MetersBelding's Savannah SparrowTerritorial Behaviors - April 2007Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjectOrange County, CAMerkel & Associates, Inc.Appendix 1-E

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-F. 2007 BREEDING SEASON FOR THE CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN AT BOLSA CHICAECOLOGICAL RESERVEMerkel & Associates, Inc.

2007 Breeding Season for the California Least Tern, Sternula antillarum browni,at Bolsa Chica Ecological ReserveByPeter Knapp and Kelly O’ReillyCalifornia Department of Fish and Game7 November 2007California least tern chick on South Tern Island, BCER, June 2007. Photo by K. O’Reilly

Summary of 2007 Breeding SeasonAn estimated 212 pairs of California least terns, Sternula antillarum browni, (LETE)nested at the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER) during the 2007 breeding season.LETEs were present at BCER between 14 April and 23 August. The terns nested onSouth Tern Island (STI) (Figure 1) and Nest Site 1 (NS1) (Figure 2). The first nest wasfound 15 May on STI and the last nest was found 9 July on (NS1). A total of 392 eggswere laid in 226 nests. The average clutch size was 1.7 and the first LETE fledgling wasrecorded on 2 July. LETE fledgling success for the 2007 season was limited to 15fledglings, 3 from STI and 12 from NS1.At the beginning of the breeding season, numbers of least tern nest initiations and theabsence of disturbance or depredation were comparable to the 2006 season. In late April,it was necessary to take proactive steps to eliminate the potential threat of predation by asubadult male peregrine falcon (PEFA).At our request, J. Sipple captured the PEFA and transferred it to J. Pagel of the USFWS.The PEFA was banded (51 over D (left) and 1126-02205 (right)) and a blood sample wastaken for genetics. Pagel transported the PEFA to northern California and released it nearthe Oregon border, approximately 620 miles north of BCER.During May, LETE breeding proceeded normally with incubation and chick hatching.During the last week in June, it became apparent that chick loss was occurring, as fewLETE runners were seen chasing adults with fish. On NS1, black skimmers (BLSK)initially established nests in the area centered on grids R, S, and T (Figure 2). This areawas already the site of LETE nests. As the BLSKs expanded their nesting area,eventually covering grids O and W (Figure 2), LETE nests were lost through trampling.Also, although undocumented, it is highly probable that BLSKs aggressively defendedtheir own nests and broods by pecking at or throwing intruders into the air. This behaviorwas observed repeatedly within the BLSK colony and no LETE chicks were seen withinthese grids during surveys. Coincident with LETE chick loss in this area of NS1, fivesnowy plover (SNPL) nests protected by Mini-Exclosures (MEs) successfully hatched;however, chicks were never seen again.Simultaneous with nest and chick loss occurring in the BLSK area of NS1, LETE chickloss was discovered in the northern grids of NS1 (U – CC) (Figure 2) and on STI (Figure1). These areas had black-crowned night heron (BCNH) tracks that followed the smallertracks made by LETE chicks. Chick loss in this area was nearly 100%. Prior to thediscovery of these BCNH tracks, night surveys and monitoring had not been performed.However, subsequent to these observations, W. Ross, our contracted predatormanagement specialist, made night surveys and found BCNHs in the area described.There were no reported sightings of BCNHs or other herons or egrets on NS1 duringdaylight hours. The BCNH activity detected on STI is the suspected cause of LETE andSNPL loss there. All 11 SNPL chicks, hatched from four nests on STI, were probably lostto BCNH depredation.2

Ninety-five-percent of documented mortality was due to depredation (175 chicks and 65eggs preyed upon). As described above, most mortality was attributed to BCNHs (168chicks) and BLSKs (65 nests, 97 eggs). In addition, six chicks were lost to a Great BlueHeron and ants depredated one chick. Other potential predators on LETE included gulls,Caspian terns, white-tailed kites, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, American crows,common ravens, coyotes, and California ground squirrels.Drought conditions and BLSK activity destroyed most of the vegetation on NS1; thuslimiting chick cover for both LETEs and SNPLs.P. Knapp (CDFG) served as the primary LETE monitor and was assisted by B. Peterson(Merkel & Assoc.), L. Hays (CDFG volunteer), and Kelly O’Reilly (CDFG).Management Recommendations for California Least Terns at Bolsa ChicaRegular night surveys are necessary to assess BCNH activity and other potentialnocturnal avian and mammal activity on both NS1 and STI. Predator management will berequired during evening hours as well as during daylight hours.Preventative measures such as raptor capture and relocation should be considered whenwarranted. During early spring 2007, as many as three PEFAs were seen loafing andpreying upon birds at BCER in the vicinity of NS1 and STI. The male PEFA mentionedabove (51 over D) returned to BCER in October and is regularly seen at NS1 along withan adult female PEFA. We hope these raptors will move out of the area after winter.A method of protecting LETE nests from BLSK nesting behavior must be developed.LETEs are early nesters; whereas, BLSKs nest later in the season after LETE nests andhatching have commenced. The use of an open top ME is a possibility; but the success ofthis approach would depend upon the adult LETE’s acceptance of the ME. The placementof chick fencing may limit the expansion of BLSKs into LETE nesting areas; however,this method may have an adverse affect on BLSK productivity due to the potential loss ofBLSK chicks within a confined area.Finally, cover, in the form of vegetation, is necessary on NS1. Vegetative growth mayoccur during the winter of 2007-2008, provided there is sufficient rainfall. Given thepossiblility of continued drought conditions in Southern California, we recommendseeding with native sand dune species, such as beach primrose (CamissoniaCheiranthifolia) and a watering regime to encourage plant germination on NS1.Figure 1. South Tern Island and Figure 2. Nest Site 1, follow on pages 4 and 5.3

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 1-G. FINAL REPORT WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NESTING AT BOLSA CHICA, ORANGECOUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2007Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Final ReportWestern Snowy Plover Nestingat Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California2007photo by P. KnappMale snowy plover with newly hatched chick and unhatched eggby Peter Knapp, Bonnie Peterson, and Jack FancherDecember 2007

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007INTRODUCTIONBolsa 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 a sump for local drainage. In 1978, restoration began on the State’s Ecological Reserve, andmuted 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 would augment 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, August 24, 2006. The FullTidal Basin is now subject to water level rise and fall that matches the unequal semi-diurnal tidalrange of southern California’s ocean waters.The purpose of this investigation is to continueto improve the level of knowledge about thewestern snowy plover (Charadriusalexandrinus nivosus), a federally listed,threatened species that currently uses BolsaChica, and to attempt interim managementactions to benefit the reproductive success ofthis species. In addition, this study will aid inassessing the success of the restoration projectsand allow for modifications that would enhanceutilization and increase reproductive success ofthe western snowy plover. This annual studywas first initiated in 1997. This reportaddresses the 2007 snowy plover breedingseason at Bolsa Chica.Snowy Plover family foraging on Bolsa Chica mudflats.Photo: P.KnappBACKGROUND 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, 2007 December 2007The breeding season of the western snowy plover extends from March 1 through September 15.Generally, 3 eggs are laid in a nest on the ground, which consists of a shallow depression scraped inthe 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 (Page et al. 1995, Tucker and Powell1999) along intertidal areas, beaches in wet sand and surf cast kelp, foredune areas of dry sand abovethe high tide, on salt panne, and edges of salt marshes and salt ponds. The snowy plover is primarilya 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 on historically used beach strand habitat. 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 1997-2007 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 1 through 37), North Tern Island (NTI), South Tern Island (STI),Nest Site 1 (NS1), Nest Site 2 (NS2), and Nest Site 3 (NS3) (Figure 2). Some areas in the vicinity ofthe Bolsa Chica study area were not surveyed in this study, although western snowy plovers mayhave used the habitats for foraging or loafing. Those areas are the ocean beach immediately to thewest at Bolsa Chica State Beach and Inner Bolsa Bay to the west of West Levee Road with theexception of NTI and STI (Figure 1). The study area also did not include Cell 64 (the EdwardsThumb), which remains in private ownership and a different oil lease.The Seasonal Ponds are demarcated into subareas (cells) by the network of slightly elevated roadsconstructed decades ago for access to the oil wells. These cells were numbered and form the basisfor observer navigation, nest mapping, and data recording. Each cell is unique in configuration andarea. The approximate areas of some key cells are: Cell 10 (17 acres) and Cell 11 (54 acres). Theseasonal ponds are predominantly soil or salt panne and the most dominant plant species ispickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica). Some cells were thickly vegetated with pickleweed andconsidered unsuitable for western snowy plover nesting (Cells 41 through 50). Similarly, areasMerkel & Associates, Inc. 3

2007 Nest LocationsNest LocationAt least 1 young fledgedAbandonedNest SitesRoads3739386334353650664746484969454270414072303231 282919332720142526222113910242312112687173Meters0 100 200 400 600Figure 2. Distribution of Western Snowy Plover Nests in 2007 at Bolsa Chica

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007inundated by water during most of the breeding season (Cells 30 and 38) are unsuitable for nestingbut the margins were regularly checked for nesting plovers.NTI and STI are well-established created islands under muted tidal influence within Inner Bolsa Bay.The surface is dredge spoil with a developed boundary of intertidal or salt tolerant vegetation.NS1 is a large linear nesting area between Inner Bolsa Bay and the Full Tidal Basin that was recentlycreated during the restoration of the Full Tidal Basin. The surface is dredge spoil that forms a flatsurface that extends from the West Levee Rd. towards the basin. The shoreline along the basin isnow under full tidal influence. Beach primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia) is the primaryvegetation on this site although there is some alkali heath (Frankenia salina), Parish’s pickleweed(Arthrocnemum subterminale), and iceplant (Mesembryanthemum sp.) also found on the nesting site.Beach primrose, a perennial plant, was initiated and grew well on the nest site in 2006 but then diedout primarily due to drought and soil conditions. In 2007 the vegetation was very sparse. The areaalong the shoreline lacks vegetation or debris that is normally found in a tidal area.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 there isvery little live vegetation on either nest site. Foraging areas for snowy plover chicks are not readilyavailable on these nest sites; therefore, they must leave the site immediately upon hatching to findforaging areas in the adjacent cells.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 METHODSBeginning late-March, Peter Knapp (the primary surveyor) assisted by Kelly O’Reilly (CaliforniaDepartment of Fish & Game (CDFG)), Loren Hayes (Volunteer), and Bonnie Peterson (Merkel &Associates) surveyed for nesting western snowy plovers at least twice a week, sometimes 4 or 5times a week, until the beginning of September. Data collected during this study included the genderof 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).Observations were also recorded of western snowy plover distribution by cell number, throughout thestudy 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 8 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 orpreening 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.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 5

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007STI 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 (Thalasseus elegans) and black skimmers (Rynchopsniger).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-seasonother than from the West Levee Road north to Section M. NS1 was also partially surveyed on foot aspart of least tern surveys from CC south to M. Each nest located on NS1 was marked with a numberedtongue depressor and mapped for ease of relocation on subsequent visits. NS2 was surveyed by vehiclefrom the East Levee Road weekly using a spotting scope and once a month on foot. There was nonesting activity on NS2 this season. NS3 was surveyed by vehicle from the north end of the site.It was usually possible to follow the movements and determine the fate of chicks of each brood sincethere was dispersion over space and time sufficient to differentiate between broods. In a few casesbanded adults identified specific broods, although banding of chicks has not been done at BolsaChica since 2000. Broods were observed 3 - 5 days per week. These regular brood observationswere conducted to determine chick survival or fledgling production, as well as to detect movementbetween cells and use of specific cells for brood rearing.A range-wide, breeding season window survey was conducted at Bolsa Chica in May 2007. 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 used in previous years (2-inch x 4-inch welded wire mesh, forming a cube 20 inches on a side), when centered over the nest,provided a distance of about 10 inches that a coyote (Canis latrans) must extend its forelimb throughthe ME opening to reach the eggs. Since some coyotes have been able to reach the eggs with thisdimension, wider MEs (28-inch width on all four sides and 16-inch height) were deployed in 2006that require a 14-inch reach to rake eggs out of the center of the ME-protected area. All MEs in useduring 2007 were of the wider variety.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 least tern for decades.In places, such as Bolsa Chica, where snowy plover nests in proximity to the least tern, predatormanagement activities on behalf of one species will also benefit the other species. In 2007, predatormanagement was undertaken by Wally Ross under contract to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS).Since June 2002, anchored MEs were usually deployed on every nest from the time the nest wasdiscovered until hatching. The American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) has been a serious,omnipresent predator of snowy plover eggs in previous years at Bolsa Chica. However, loss ofsnowy plover eggs to crows has been virtually eliminated due to the ME protection. When diggingMerkel & Associates, Inc. 6

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007marks or egg loss evidence indicated visitation by a mammalian predator, drop-door traps weredeployed by predator control staff. When ground squirrels were implicated, commercial poison baitstations were also deployed.In 2007, simulated nest scrapes were constructed using quail eggs injected with bitter tasting, nonlethalcontents. This aversion technique has been successfully used in previous years in an attempt todeter coyote depredation of snowy plover eggs. (Several “digging” attempts, some successful atstealing plover eggs, some not, in 2005 suggested that coyotes were possibly cueing in on the MEsand learning to reach through the wire mesh to rake eggs out.) The use of “aversion” nests wasintended to teach coyotes to leave ME-covered eggs alone, without harming or removing coyotes.From February 1 through April, these “aversion nests”, 3 baited eggs each, were constructed in areaswhere snowy plovers had nested in the past. Some nests were covered with an ME and some werenot. The use of aversion nests in 2007 contributed to no egg predation in 2007. Chick predation bycoyote in 2007 will be discussed in a following section.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONNEST DISTRIBUTION AND CHRONOLOGIESRainfall in 2007 was below average and both flats and prepared nest sites were available andunflooded throughout the nesting season. The distribution of nests indicates that NS1, the SeasonalPonds, and NS3 were the preferred nesting sites in 2007, with approximately 54% of all 2007 snowyplover nests located on the newly created NS1 and NS3 (Figure 2, Table 1). There was no nestingactivity on NS2 this season. STI attracted 4 nests.NS1 had 38% (19) of all nests. The Seasonal Ponds also had 38% of the nests but these were wellspaced in 7 different cells. The most utilized cells were Cell 11 (12%), Cell 32 (8%), Cell 13 (6%),and Cell 22 (6%). Distribution of nests on the Seasonal Ponds appears to fluctuate annually. Forexample, Cell 22 had 3 nests in 2007, 12 nests in 2006, and no nests in 2005. NS3 had 8 (16%)nests. Figure 2 shows the location of all nests located in the Bolsa Chica study area.Table 1. 2007 Nest, Nest Fate, and Reproductive Success Distribution by CellLocation Total Nests Nests Failed*Nests Hatched(# chicks)FledglingsNest Site 1 19 1 18 (50) 17Nest Site 3 8 0 8 (21) 3Cell 11 6 0 6 (17) 4Cell 32 4 1 3 (7) 0South Tern Island 4 0 4 (11) 0Cell 13 3 0 3 (8) 0Cell 22 3 0 3 (9) 13 other areas 3 0 3 (7) 0Total 50 2 48 (130) 25*Both nest failures in 2007 were due to nest abandonment.Appendix 1 provides the cell location, start and end dates, nest fates, eggs and chicks produced foreach nest.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 7

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007The State and Federal Endangered California least tern also nests at Bolsa Chica, usually on STI. In2006, they nested on STI and on the new NS1. Snowy plover egg-laying typically begins severalweeks before the least tern begins its egg-laying. This has been the case at Bolsa Chica. The twospecies tolerate the co-location of their nests, although inter-specific antagonism between adults andbetween adults and chicks was occasionally evident.Black skimmers and elegant terns alsonested on NS1 in 2007. Both speciestypically nest on NTI but the blackskimmers and some of the elegantterns abandoned that nesting site inJune and moved to NS1. It isunknown if this is a trend or whetherthe skimmers will return to NTI insubsequent years. The tight colonialstyle of nesting of the elegant ternsand the black skimmers did notexclude the snowy plover from anyportion of the nesting area. However,it is unknown whether their presenceon NS1 had an effect on the overallreproductive success of the snowyplover once the nests hatched and thechicks left the protection of the ME.Elegant terns surrounding an active snowy plover nest protected by an ME.Photo: P. KnappIn 2007, the first plover nest was initiated April 9, later than in the preceding 10 years of the study(Figure 3). Even with this late start, 10 (20%) nests had been initiated by May 1, which is a greaternumber of nests in all previous years with the exception of 2004 (18, 27.7%) and 2005 (12, 23.5%).Half of the nests had been initiated by May 28. The active nest chronology in Figure 4 shows a fairlysteady nest count from early May until mid-July which is a normal trend at Bolsa Chica with theexception of 2004 when breeding had 2 peaks of nesting. Although the trend was steady, there werefewer nests during the prime nesting period than in the past 2 years, but a greater number than in the97-03 average. The last nest hatched on August 12, which is comparable or later than in previousyears (Figure 3).EGG, CHICK, AND FLEDGLING PRODUCTIONAll 50 nests in 2007 were judged to be completed clutches. Seven completed clutches were 2-eggclutches, while 43 were 3-egg clutches (Appendix 1). None of the 50 total nest attempts were lost topredators, however, 2 complete clutches, one with 3 eggs and one with 2 eggs, failed to hatch. The 2nests that were abandoned appear to be unrelated to each other. One was located on NS1 and wasfound on June 8. The second abandoned nest was located on Cell 32 and was found on June 28.At least 143 snowy plover eggs were produced at Bolsa Chica in 2007, with 13 eggs abandoned orfailing to hatch. From the 143 total eggs produced, 130 chicks were produced. Of these 130 totalchicks produced in 2007, only a maximum of 25 chicks (19.2%) were estimated to have survived tofledge (Table 2). This high degree of chick loss must be considered severe.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 8

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Figure 3. 1997-2007 Bolsa Chica Active Nest ChronologyForty-eight nests survived to hatch (hatching success rate of 96% or nest failure rate of 4%). This isthe highest hatching success rate since surveys began in 1997 and the lowest fledgling rate since1999 (Figure 6). These figures represent continued high nest numbers at Bolsa Chica, but a decliningfledgling rate (Figure 5).In 2007, 8 dead eggs were observed, excluding eggs in abandoned nests. With 143 total eggs laid in2007, 5.6% of total eggs were dead eggs. No analysis was made of these 8 dead eggs to determinewhether they were sterile or had exhibited some degree of development before expiration. Includingthe 2007 breeding season, the ten-year average percent of dead eggs is 4.2% (60/437).The total fledgling count was more difficult to determine in 2007 than in past years due toinsufficient geographic and temporal separation of broods, hampering efforts to maintain broodidentity all the way to fledging during the middle part of the season. Most broods were hard tofollow due to rarity of banded parents and continual reconfiguration of brood territories orboundaries. Through field observation, we did conclude that a maximum total of 25 chicks wereproduced in the 2007 breeding season.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 9

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Figure 4. Biweekly Nest Initiation, Hatching, & LossTable 2. Males, Females, Nests and Fledgling Production 1997-2007Year Females MalesTotalTotal % ChickFledglingsNestsFledge/Nest SurvivalFl/Male2007 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 determinedMerkel & Associates, Inc. 10

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Figure 5. Comparison of Number of Hatched Nests, Failed Nests, and Fledglings 1997-2007.Several factors may have contributed to the low production of fledglings in 2007. The most likelycause would be predation on chicks, discussed more below. Of 21 chicks produced on NS3, allmoved off the nest site top to other locations. And of 50 chicks produced on NSI only 2 were knownto have left the site. Food shortages that may have caused chick loss in 2006, especially on NS1,were not evident in 2007. In the 2007 breeding season, NS1 received full tidal influence, whichshould have increased the prey base of insects and invertebrates. Currently, no method of assessingthe adequacy of the prey base for snowy plover chick survival has been developed for Bolsa Chica.Brood movement out of an area is a symptom of a problem. However, broods may be relocatingbecause the adult is evading a potential predator, been the loser in a brood territory dispute, orbecause there is no food available for chicks. A disease that causes chick death but not illness inadults seems improbable.In this study, when one or more eggs of a clutch hatch, days are allowed to pass before any egg(s)that may have been abandoned are collected. No apparently abandoned eggs have been seen tohatch.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 11

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Figure 6. Egg, Chick, and Fledgling Production 1997-2007.NUMBERS OF MALE AND FEMALE SNOWY PLOVERSDuring May 2007, a range-wide breeding season window survey was conducted. The total numberof snowy plovers present at Bolsa Chica was 30 adults (Table 2). This was the lowest total since1999 and the third lowest during the study period.BROOD TRACKINGDue to the chronological and geographic spacing of each brood, it was possible to locate and identifyindividual broods over the entire several-week period before they fledged. Each brood tended to staytogether and the males prevented overlap or co-mingling with other broods. In 2007, as in previousyears, many broods were moved around by the guiding male. Broods hatched from NS 3 and fromCell 22 relocated within days to other locations. Snowy plovers readily use the roads of Bolsa Chicato cover distances of 1/3 to 3/4 mile. In June and July, area counts of snowy plover chicks indicatedvery low numbers compared to the expected number, especially around NS1. Broods on NS1 werenot tracked on a regular basis to avoid possible disturbance of other nesting birds on the site (least,elegant, royal, and caspian terns, and black skimmers).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 12

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Territorial dispute between two male Snowy Plovers.Photo: P. KnappOBSERVATIONS OF BANDED ADULTSA male (RBRP) hatched at Moss Landing in 2001 was seen with one brood at Bolsa Chica in 2003.He had two broods at Bolsa Chica in 2004. In 2005, he was seen very frequently and was associatedwith one brood that produced one fledgling. In 2006, this male was again seen frequently and wasassociated with one unsuccessful brood on NS1. In 2007, he was identified with nest 8 and 42 withone successful fledging from NS1. He was not seen after July.A male (WNGY) nested successfully at Bolsa Chica in 2004, 2005, and 2006. This male was bandedat Guadalupe Dunes near Pismo Beach in 2003. He was seen on NS1 in 2007 but not identified witha specific nest. This bird has wintered at Surfside, Orange County the past 2 winters.A female (WWYY) banded as an adult at the South Spit, Humboldt Bay in 2006, nested twice atBolsa Chica on STI. Six chicks were hatched but none left the island or fledged.Three other banded adults nested at Bolsa Chica in 2007, but were identified by only a USFWS band.Two were females nesting on NS1 and the other a male nesting on NS3.PREDATIONIn 2007, none of the 50 nests were lost to predation. Two nests were abandoned. The 2007proportion of nests hatching, 48 out of 50 (96%) exceeded every other year of the study. However,the number of fledglings produced (25), was the lowest since 1999. The low rate of nest loss andhigh degree of chick production is attributable to the following management actions: a) deploymentof larger MEs to deter crow and common raven (Corvus corax) predation; b) The use of “aversion”nests to deter predation by coyotes; and c) the use of bait stations to deter predation by groundsquirrel.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 13

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Fledglings per nest (0.50) ranked the lowest out of the 10 years of fledgling estimates (Table 2). Onehundred five chicks were most likely lost to predation. Of this loss, the only documented take wasby American kestrel (Falco sparverius), one on NS1 and the other in the Seasonal Pond area. Themost likely culprit of snowy plover chick mortality in 2007 continues to be kestrels. They wererelatively abundant and can do great harm very quickly. Therefore, efforts to remove them fromBolsa Chica during the snowy plover breeding season continued by capturing and transporting themconsiderably inland. Six kestrels were transported away from Bolsa Chica (Table 3). A moderatelapse in attentiveness toward kestrels is apparently sufficient opportunity for just one or two kestrelsto radically deplete the snowy plover chick production at Bolsa Chica, as appears to have happenedin June 2007. Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) never numerous in the lowland were notpresent in 2007.Other chick predation was potentially caused by raven,coyote, black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax),and black skimmers. The probable loss to ravens was 2broods from Cell 22 that moved to Cell 13 to feed. Thiscoincided with regular raven visits to Cell 13 to feed uponcoyote scraps. Coyotes and 4 pups utilized the culvertbetween Cells 12 and 13 as a den in 2007. Raven loss wasestimated at 6 chicks. The loss to coyotes is estimated at onebrood of 3 chicks which hatched coincident with coyote/pupactivity on NS3. Coyote tracks substantiate the probable loss.The loss to black-crowned night heron is probable on ST1 andpossibly on NS1. Chick losses were both to least tern andplover chicks. Heron tracks indicated widespread huntingcoincident with chick production and loss of broods 1, 12, 30,and 39: a loss of 13 chicks. The probable loss of chicks toblack skimmers was on NS1: broods 24 through 28 were lostfor a total of 13 chicks. Breeding black skimmers dominatedthe areas of NS1 between sections O to W, which coincidedwith broods 24 through 28.Coyote pups had tried to gain access to SnowyPlover eggs protected by a ME. Photo: P.KnappRed-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was regularly present in the Bolsa Chica lowland but no knownpredation of snowy plover was evident. No hawk nest was known to be present in the Bolsa Chicalowland in 2007, as there had been in 2002. One red-tailed hawk was live-trapped and transportedaway from Bolsa Chica in 2007 due to its continued presence on power poles opposite the STI.While Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii) have been present during the snowy plover breedingseason at Bolsa Chica for years, they had not been identified as a harmful predator. In 2005,increased abundances of Cooper’s hawks in and around the periphery of the wetland, and one directobservation of a Cooper’s hawk eating a likely snowy plover chick, led to a response to theirpresence. However, in 2007 no action was taken against Cooper’s hawks, although they werepresent at the perimeter of the lowlands.One peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) was present at Bolsa Chica at the beginning of the breedingseason. To reduce the likelihood that the presence of the falcon would cause the colonial nestingseabirds to abandon their nesting efforts at Bolsa Chica, it was live captured and relocated toMerkel & Associates, Inc. 14

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Northern California. This male individual returned to Bolsa Chica in October and was regularly seenwith an adult female at NS1.Burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) were present in the Bolsa Chica lowland in late winter for thelast several years. These transient birds typically left the area in early spring and had no adverseaffect upon seabird or snowy plover nesting at Bolsa Chica. In the winter of 2006-07, fiveindividuals were noted in the lowland area. This rare and declining bird could establish a breedingpresence at Bolsa Chica, to its benefit, but it could also severely harm the reproductive success ofother State and Federally listed species. In that eventuality, thoughtful management actions mayneed to be considered.The gull-billed tern (Gelochilodon nilotica), another rare and declining species, has increased itsnesting presence near least tern and snowy plover nesting areas of San Diego County in the last fewyears. This tern sometimes preys upon least tern and snowy plover chicks. Gull-billed terns havebeen occasionally observed at Bolsa Chica in recent years, but not in 2007. Should they return andpose a significant threat to the reproductive success of the least tern and/or snowy plover, thoughtfulmanagement actions may need to be considered.The elegant tern and black skimmer nesting at Bolsa Chica, because of their potentially largenumbers, extreme density of nests, dense flocking/loafing behavior, “bullying” temperament, and/ordense groups of chicks, can interfere with successful breeding by least tern or snowy plover. Theexisting NTI seems perfectly suited to the elegant tern nesting although competition for nesting spaceappears likely. Use of decoys, as done in 2007, to attract elegant terns to NTI, hazing, and/or the useof chick fences to prevent elegant tern chicks from trampling the nests of other birds can potentiallybe used to reduce conflicts should they arise.No instance of predation on or disease mortality of adult snowy plovers was detected in 2007.Table 3. Bolsa Chica Predator Removal Summary 1997-2007Potential Predator 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997American Crow 10 - 15 99 118 52 80 91 27 1 2America Kestrel 4 6 13 19 5 12 13 15 46 14 2Loggerhead Shrike - 4 1 10 5 3 6 2 5 - -Common Raven 4 2 1 2 4 5 6 3 2 - -Coopers Hawk - - 8 - - - - - - - -Peregrine Falcon 1 - - - - - - - - - -Gulls 7 - 1 - - - - - - - -Skunk - - - 2 1 - - - - - -Coyote - - - - - - - - - - -Weasel - - - - - - - - - - -Ground Squirrel* unk unk unk unk unk - - - - - -* bait stations used, therefore the number removed is unknown (unk).Merkel & Associates, Inc. 15

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONSThe 2007 western snowy plover breeding season resulted in excellent nest survival rates, with noknown nest predation. The high nest survival rates are attributable to management actions such asthe use of MEs. However, the fledgling rate was extremely low at only 19.6%. Therefore,management recommendations focus on maintaining existing management actions as well as takingadditional steps that focus on improving fledgling success. The endangered California least tern, thatnests in the same locations as the western snowy plover, need to be considered in all managementefforts. The following five recommendations are proposed for upcoming nesting seasons:1. Continue utilizing the MEs and taking other preventive measures to protect nestsfrom predation.The deployment of MEs on every nest has been very effective at preventing egg loss to crows andravens. Mimic aversion nests, stocked with bitter tasting eggs, appear to have ended egg predationby coyotes, just as bait stations have deterred ground squirrel depredation. These managementefforts should continue.2. Develop methods to decrease predation of snowy plover chicks.Loss of chicks this season (at least 105 chicks) is due in part to chick predation. Field evidencelinked five predators to the loss of approximately 35 of these chicks: black-crowned night heron (13chicks), black skimmer (up to 11 chicks), common raven (6 chicks), coyote (3 chicks), and Americankestrel (2+ chicks). The lack of adequate shelter on the newly constructed nest sites could also becompounding this problem.While management efforts have successfully deterred the predation of nests, it is much more difficultto offer the same protection to highly mobile chicks. It is anticipated that snowy plovers willcontinue to benefit to some degree from the annual predator control efforts undertaken for theprotection of the California least tern.However, further protection, in the form of shelter, may make the small chicks less of a target topredators. The snowy plover chicks tend to stop moving and crouch down in a depression or besidean object if they feel threatened or if an adult gives a warning call. Because of their coloration, theycan be very difficult to locate if crouched in a sheltered area. An increase in the number of plantsand/or ocean debris in foraging areas may be sufficient to provide adequate shelter.At NS1, there is currently no plant cover along the shoreline and very little debris. There is potentialthat adequate shelter could develop naturally along the shoreline in the form of wrack, brought in asdrift kelp by the tide. Drought conditions may have caused the beach primrose that occurred on thetop of NS1 to die out during the nesting season. If so, there is potential for this plant to return to thatarea provided there is adequate rainfall during the winter.Small amounts of shelter could be provided at NS1 by: 1) allowing wrack to naturally accumulate onthe shore, 2) planting small amounts of pickleweed and placing natural material such as driftwoodand other ocean debris along the shoreline, and 3) conducting limited reseeding of the nest area.These shortfalls should be implemented during the winter season in preparation of the 2008 breedingseason.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 16

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Nesting black skimmers have the potential to be a problem in 2008, as they were in 2007. If theblack skimmers continue to nest in the same areas as snowy plovers, chick fencing or constructionfencing could be installed as a potential barrier between the skimmer nesting area and the snowyplover and least tern nests. This would protect the least tern eggs and chicks as well as snowy ploverchicks once they leave the protection of the ME. The barrier would need to be installed after theblack skimmers start nesting because they do not have a pre-determined nesting area and should beinstalled so as to not block access to the beach area where the plovers forage. This solution shouldbe considered, but approached with caution. There are no data available on whether the fencing willwork to protect plovers from skimmers or what effects it may have on the nesting skimmers. Theeffect of fencing on snowy plovers is well known. They have nested in fenced tern colonies formany years with little consequence except when it prevents them from accessing beach areas wherethey can forage.3. Develop methods to increase forage opportunities for snowy plover chicks.Increasing food supplies will allow the snowy plover broods to maintain smaller territories and beadequately nourished. Food availability may improve over time, although steps should be consideredto improve this situation prior to the 2008 breeding season. Importing decaying seaweed or otherocean debris will likely attract shoreflies (Scatella stagnalis) and other invertebrates, increasing theamount of available forage for snowy plover chicks.4. Increase usage and reproductive success on NS2 and NS3.NS2 was not used by nesting snowy plovers or terns during the 2007-breeding season; therefore, it isunknown whether enhancement would increase reproductive success. This nest site is surrounded bywater, which may offer some protection, but like NS3, offers very little in the way of shelter andforaging sites. NS3 was utilized this year and had very low fledgling success (14%). This wasprobably due to the lack of foraging areas within the immediate area. Chicks are burning valuableresources before they reach adequate foraging grounds.Decoys could be utilized to attract terns and plovers to these nesting sites but this would not berecommended until we can be assured that we have created safe nesting and foraging areas for thesespecies, rather than a population sink. Management of these nesting sites should include sparselyvegetating the upper surface of the islands to offer some shelter and to anchor the sandy surface ofthe site. Alternatives for foraging areas need to be assessed. On NS2 the water acts as a barrier tomovement for foraging; therefore there needs to be adequate shelter and forage within that barrier.On NS 3, the chicks normally travel long distances, immediately after they have hatched, to reachshelter and foraging areas within the seasonal pond area. The plover adults do not feed the chicks;they guide the chicks to areas where they can forage on their own. Currently, the chicks are travelingacross the top of the nest site, down the unvegetated slope, across a road, and then must find an areawhere the pickleweed is either absent or sparse enough for them to pass through to the salt panne.Any methods developed that would decrease the distance chicks are required to travel (i.e. allow thesand to cover the road to the east of NS3 giving direct access to Cell 13) would also increase thepotential for survival. Careful consideration should be given to management options for these twonesting sites.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 17

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 20075. Reduce sand export from created nesting sites.The surface sand has been reduced on the nesting sites due to blowing winds that export the sand intothe adjacent waterways, roadways, and cells. This is particularly evident on NS3 where much of thesurface sand has been displaced to the base of the hill and along the roadway between Cell 13 and 14.Installing drift fences along portions of the nesting sites would catch the blowing sand prior leavingthe nesting sites and would act to create small dunes. Caution should be taken to ensure that the driftfences are not blocking beach or other foraging areas during the snowy plover breeding season.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.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe offer special thanks to Wally Ross and Ron Brown who performed the predator managementactions that are so important to snowy plover reproductive success at Bolsa Chica.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 18

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007LITERATURE 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.Page, G. W., J. S. Warriner, J.C. Warriner, and P.W. Patton 1995. Snowy Polver (Charadriusalexandrinus) in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) No. 154. Acad. Nat.Sci. Philadelphia.Ross, W.L. 1999. Bolsa Chica wetlands 1999 breeding season predator management report. A reportfor the Fish and Wildlife Service. 3pp.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 19

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Ross, 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. 10pp.Ross, 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 pp.Ross, 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 pp.Ross, 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 pp.Ross, 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 pp.Ross, 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 pp.Ross, 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 pp.Ross, 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.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.U.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. 20

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Appendix 1. Snowy plover eggs laid, chicks hatched, and fledged at Bolsa Chica, 2007Nest # Cell # date found date ended eggs nest fate chicks fledglings1 STI 4-9 5-153 H3 02 NS3 4-10 5-12 3 H 3 03 22 4-13 5-17 3 H 3 04 NS1Z2 4-14 5-18 3 2H1A 2 25 NS1I1 4-17 5-13 3 H 3 06 34 4-22 5-13 2 H 2 07 NS3 4-24 5-20 3 H 3 18 NS1C2 4-26 5-27 3 H 3 19 13 4-27 5-29 3 H 3 010 NS1F2 4-29 5-28 2 H 2 211 NS3 5-1 5-29 3 H 3 012 STI 5-2 5-30 3 H 3 013 NS1M1 5-7 6-3 3 H 3 014 NS1K1 5-7 6-7 3 H 3 015 11 5-7 6-8 3 H 3 116 NS1Y1 5-7 6-3 3 H 3 317 NS1E1 5-8 6-6 3 H 3 218 NS3 5-9 6-6 2 H 2 019 NS3 5-14 6-8 3 H 3 020 STI 5-15 6-9 3 2H1A 2 021 NS1Z3 5-17 6-11 3 H 3 222 22 5-19 6-18 3 H 3 123 NS3 5-28 6-24 3 H 3 124 NS1U1 5-28 6-25 3 2H 1A 2 025 NS1T1 5-28 6-25 3 H 3 026 NS1O1 5-28 6-25 3 H 3 1Merkel & Associates, Inc. 21

Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, 2007 December 2007Nest # Cell # date found date ended eggs nest fate chicks fledglings27 NS1V2 5-30 6-25 3 H 3 028 NS1Q1 5-30 6-25 3 H 3 029 NS3 5-31 6-26 3 H 3 130 11 6-1 6-21 3 H 3 131 11 6-7 7-11 3 H 3 232 NS1I1 6-8 8-16 3 3A 0 033 NS3 6-8 7-4 3 1H2A 1 034 22 6-9 7-2 3 H 3 035 11 6-9 7-9 3 H 3 036 19 6-21 7-17 3 H 3 037 NS1K1 6-21 7-16 3 H 3 038 13 6-21 7-23 3 H 3 039 STI 6-21 7-18 3 H 3 040 NS1O1 6-25 7-23 3 H 3 141 NS1AA2 6-26 7-19 3 H 3 342 32 6-28 8-7 2 2A 0 043 11 6-28 7-28 3 2H1A 2 044 11 6-28 7-27 3 H 3 045 13 7-2 7-28 3 2H1A 2 046 10 7-4 8-3 2 H 2 047 NS1H1 7-12 8-7 2 H 2 048 32 7-13 8-12 3 2H1A 2 049 32 7-13 7-29 2 H 2 050 32 7-23 7-25 3 H 3 02007 Season Totals 143eggs0P, 2A, 48H50 Nests130chicks25fledglingsP = predated; A = abandoned; H – hatchedNote: In the Nest Fate column, 2H1A means the nest hatched but only two eggs produced chicks, one egg wasabandoned.Merkel & Associates, Inc. 22

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-A. MONTHLY TIDE PLOTSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlandss Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-1. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for December 2006. Elevations are in2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50December 2006Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)meters NAVD.Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-2. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for January 2007. Elevations are in2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50January 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)meters NAVD.Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-3. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for February 2007. Elevations are in2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50February 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)meters NAVD.Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-4. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for March 2007. Elevations are inmeters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50March 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-5. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for April 2007. Elevations are inmeters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50-1.00April 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-6. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for May 2007. Elevations are inmeters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50May 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-7. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for June 2007. Elevations are inmeters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50June 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-8. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for July 2007. Elevations are inmeters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50-1.00July 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-9. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for August 2007. Elevations are inmeters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50August 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-10. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for September 2007. Elevations arein meters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50September 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-11. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for October 2007. Elevations are inmeters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50October 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-12. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for November 2007. Elevations arein meters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50November 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring 2007 Annual ReportFigure A.2-13. Monthly tidal elevations for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Full Tidal Basin (Tide) and Los Angeles Outer Harbor (LA) for December 2007. Elevations arein meters NAVD.2.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50December 2007Tide (m-NAVD)LA (m-NAVD)Merkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-B. BOLSA BEACH PROFILE PLOTSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-C. MSL BEACH WIDTHMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportMean Sea Level Beach Width (4) (m)SurveyTransect DesignationDate 249+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 41.1 113.3Notes:(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 Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 249+30200175Stage 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 3150MSL Beach Width (m)12510075502501960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 311+22200175Stage 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 3150MSL Beach Width (m)12510075502501960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 318+30200175Stage 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 3150MSL Beach Width (m)12510075502501960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 333+30200175Stage 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 3150MSL Beach Width (m)12510075502501960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 350+71200175Stage 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 3150MSL Beach Width (m)12510075502501960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 378+29200175Stage 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 3150MSL Beach Width (m)12510075502501960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 423+89200175Stage 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 3150MSL Beach Width (m)12510075502501960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-D. SEDIMENT VOLUME DATAMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportSubaerial Volume (4) (m 3 /m)SurveyTransect DesignationDate 249+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 361Notes:(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 Monitoring2007 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 Change (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 Change (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 Change (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 Change (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 Change (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 378+29400Subaerial Volume Change (m 3 /m)35030025020015010050Stage 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 3= Surfside-Sunset Nourishment01960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010YearMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 Change (m 3 /m)3002502001501005001960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportShorezone Volume (3) (m 3 /m)SurveyTransect DesignationDate 249+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 6193Notes:(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 Monitoring2007 Annual ReportShorezone Volume Change Relative to 1963 Survey (3) (m 3 /m)SurveyTransect DesignationDate 249+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 532Notes:(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 Monitoring2007 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 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-E. MSL BEACH WIDTH MEASUREMENTSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 249+30MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 311+22MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 318+30MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 333+30MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 350+71MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 378+29MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)14012010080604020Distance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile Data02007 2008DateMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportTransect 423+89140MSL Beach Width/Distance to Berm (meters)1201008060402002007 2008DateDistance to BermMSL Beach WidthMSL Beach WidthFrom Profile DataMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 Annual ReportAPPENDIX 2-F. US ARMY CORPS BEACH WIDTH MEASUREMENTSMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 3100Berm Width (meters)8060402001975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 3100Berm Width (meters)8060402001975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.

Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Monitoring2007 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 3100Berm Width (meters)8060402001975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year= Surfside-Sunset NourishmentMerkel & Associates, Inc.