Working with California 9th National Summit on State Parks Coastal and Estuarine Restoration and to Implement a Monitoring Toolset for Bar-Built Estuaries Management Long Beach, CA December 2018 Kevin O’Connor, Ross Clark, Sarah Stoner-Duncan, Cara Clark

1 Bar-Built Estuaries (BBE)

-Seasonal closure of beach berm to the marine environment

-Marsh plain linked to height of berm, freshwater inputs, and tidal height

-Highly dynamic salinity, DO, temp, etc.

-Periodic flushing  Lack of a statewide inventory of the resources  Disparate management of resources by multiple agencies for State Parks protection of various species BBE  Limited ability to compare data among systems Management  Limited understanding of habitat loss due to historical land form Challenges changes  Limited understanding of relationship between mouth breaches and habitat changes

3  Lack of a statewide inventory of the resources  An Inventory and Classification of U.S. West Coast Estuaries, 2014  Disparate management of resources by multiple agencies for Solutions protection of various species  Considerations for Management of the Mouth State of California’s Bar- built Estuaries, 2018  Limited ability to compare data among systems  Bar-built Estuary CRAM module, 2013  Assess the condition of ~100 BBEs  Standard data being collected - watershed stressor, CRAM, depth loggers, topographic surveys, beach grainsize, etc.  Limited understanding of habitat loss due to historical land form changes  Change analysis between 1850 and current habitat maps  Limited understanding of relationship between mouth breaches and habitat changes  Marsh plain mapping and depth loggers  Developed Inundation Periodicity Index

4 What is the condition of the resource? BBE How have the systems changed? Management How can we identify management needs? Questions How can we track management success? How do we prioritize funding?

5 Overview of the Toolset

6  Level 1: consists of map‐based inventories of wetlands and related habitats, including rivers, streams, and riparian areas, plus related projects that have a direct effect on the distribution and abundance of wetlands and related habitats. Level 1 maps can serve as the basis for landscape and watershed profiles of wetland systems, and as sample frames for surveys of wetland condition based on Level 2 and Level 3 tools. WRAMP  Level 2: consists of rapid, field‐based assessments of the overall Wetland and Riparian Area condition or functional capacity of wetlands and/or their likely Monitoring Plan stressors. Level 2 results can be used to cost‐effectively survey the overall condition of wetlands across landscapes, watersheds, and A product of the CWMW regions.  Level 3: consists of quantitative measurement of specific wetland functions or stressors. Level 3 results can be used to calibrate and validate results from Level 2 assessments.

7 The Monitoring Tools Development of a Bar-built estuary monitoring system and resource management prioritization tool for California State Parks The Tools: • Level 1

• Coastal Confluence Inventory • Watershed stressors • Historical loss/alteration of habitat • Level 2 • BBE Condition (CRAM) • Level 3

• Temp/Depth loggers • Vegetation surveys • Marsh plain and beach topo survey

8 Inventory: small coastal creek mouths

9 Inventory: coastal depressions and true lagoons

10 Inventory: open river mouths

11 Inventory: bar- built estuaries

131 of ~278

12 CARPINTERIA CREEK: LAGOON FACT SHEET

Habitat Change Analysis

Historic Habitat Type (1869) Current Habitat Type (2012)

119°31'0"W 119°31'0"W

N

N

"

"

0

0

4

'

4

'

3

3

2

2

N

°

N

°

"

4

"

4 0

3

0

3

4

'

4

'

3

3

2

2

°

°

4

4

3

3 Historical Habitat Change Analysis

N

"

N

0

"

2

0

'

2

3

'

2

3

N

°

2

"

4

N

°

0

"

3

4

2

0

'

3

2

3

'

2

3

°

2

4

°

3

4 *a snap shot in 3 F F time* Open Water Beach Dune Intertidal Flat Or Bar Vegetated Wetland Vegetated Woody Vegetated Upland Developed

13 Water Elevation

Marshplain inundation graph: Sep 2015-Sep 2016

Marshplain inundation map: Sep 2016-Sep 2017 Watershed Land Cover and Stressor Analysis

14 All BBE Assessments Reference (>80) in SoCal

CRAM Assessments

available at: EcoAtlas.org

15 100

90

80

70 Condition of 60 50

State Park 40 % of estuaries assessedestuariesof % BBEs (n=65) 30

20

10

0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CRAM Index Score

16 Regional Condition Curves 100

90

80

70

60

Condition by 50 North Central 40

region South % of BBEsof % assessed 30

20

10

0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CRAM Index Score

17 Range of Attribute Scores (North) 100 100 100 94 90 92 84 88 88 80 79 70 74 66 69 69 60 59 Minimum Score 50 44 Maximum 40 38 30 mean 20 Buffer and Hydrology Physical Structure Biotic Structure Index Score Landscape Connectivity Range of Attribute Scores (Central) 100 100 96 94 96 90 90 Condition by 80 75 76 70 73 70 60 Minimum

Score 56 region 50 Maximum 42 44 40 38 37 30 mean 25 (attributes) 20 Buffer and Hydrology Physical Structure Biotic Structure Index Score Landscape Connectivity Range of Attribute Scores (South) 100 100 90 92 92 85 80 83 70 69 65 67 64 60 Minimum

Score 56 50 47 Maximum 40 42 41 30 33 mean 25 20 Buffer and Hydrology Physical Structure Biotic Structure Index Score Landscape 18 Connectivity Water Level Loggers and Marsh Plain Maps

19 Water Level Loggers and Marsh Plain Maps

20 Utilizing the WRAMP Toolset

21  What types of coastal confluences are managed by State Parks?  How many of each type?  Where are those types located?  Is one type more represented? Level 1 Data  How much of the estuary is in State Park?  How much watershed protection is in place?

22 STATE PARK name creek mouths BBE True Lagoon Coastal Depression open River mouth perennial estuary total Tolowa Dunes SP 1 1 Del Norte Coast Redwoods SP 1 1 2 Prarie Creek Redwoods SP 4 1 5 Humboldt Lagoons SP 4 4 Patrick's Point SP 1 1 Little River SB 1 1 Sinkyone Wilderness SP 1 4 5 Westport-Union Landing SB 3 3 MacKerricher SP 1 6 7 Jug Handle SNR 2 2 Caspar Headlands SB 2 2 Russian Gulch SP 1 1 Mendocino Headlands SP 1 1 Van Damme SP 2 2 Navarro River Redwood SP 1 1 Greenwood SB 1 1 Manchester SP 3 1 1 5 Schooner Gulch SB 2 2 Salt Point SP 1 1 Stillwater Cover 1 1 Fort Ross SHP 2 1 3 Sonoma Coast SP 2 4 6 Tomales Bay SP 1 1 Mount Tamalpais SP 1 1 Pacifica SB 1 1 Montara SB 4 4 Half Moon Bay SB 5 5 San Gregorio SB 1 1 Pomponio SB 1 1 Pescadero SB 1 1 Bean Hollow SB 1 1 Pigeon Point Lighthouse SHP 2 2 Ano Nuevo SP 1 4 3 8 Big Basin Redwoos SP 1 1 Wilder Ranch SP 2 9 1 12 % watershed in % of BBE Area in State State Park Natural Bridges SP 1 1 Twin Lakes SB 2 2 conservation Park New Brighton SB 1 1 2 Seacliff SB 1 1 Manresa SB 1 1 2 Zmudowski SB 1 1 2 North 37.6 55.7 Coastal Moss Landing SB 1 1 Salinas River SB 1 1 2 Asilomar SB 1 1 Central 52.8 63.4 Carmel River SB 2 2 Point Lobos SNR 1 1 Garrapata SP 1 3 4 South 55.3 58.5 Confluences Andrew Molera SP 1 1 Julia Pfeiffer Burns SP 3 3 Limekiln SP 1 1 Hearst San Simeon SP 4 14 1 19 Harmony Headlands SP 1 1 Estero Bluffs 4 4 Cayucos SB 2 2 Morro Bay SP 1 1 Morro Strand SB 3 3 Montana de Oro SP 1 2 1 4 Pismo SB 2 2 2 6 Gaviota SP 2 1 3 Refugio SP 2 3 5 Carpinteria SB 1 1 Emma Wood SB 1 1 2 San Buenaventura SB 1 1 McGrath SB 1 1 2 Point Mugu SP 1 1 2 Leo Carrillo SP 2 2 Malibu Lagoon SB 1 1 Topanga SP 1 1 Will Rogers SB 3 3 Corona del Mar SB 1 1 Crystal Cove SP 1 3 4 Doheny SB 1 1 San Clemente SB 3 3 San Onofre SB 2 1 3 South Carlsbad SB 1 1 Moonlight SB 1 1 Torrey Pines SNR 1 1 Border Field SP 1 1

TOTAL 42 131 5 13 4 6 201 23  Low Condition sites Level 2 data  Regional reference sites

24  North  Pudding Creek: 59  Biotic: 44  Central Identify Low  Aptos Creek: 37  Physical structure: 25 Condition sites  Little Cayucos Creek: 51  Buffer: 42 (<60)  Yankee Jim: 56 Utilize CRAM assessments to  Physical structure: 25 determine the cause of low condition then address those issues  South with restoration or conservation  San Juan Creek: 41  Buffer: 34  Carpinteria Creek: 46  Physical structure: 25  Topanga Creek: 47  Physical structure: 25

25 Poor Quality Sites

Restore Degraded  Aptos Creek CRAM=37 Systems  Poor Buffer, hydrology, physical and biological (focus on low condition  Action – low priority (poor quality / high stress) (except for fish passage) attributes)  Carpinteria Creek CRAM=46  Poor buffer and Physical Structure  Action- Set back channel armoring, reclaim wettable lowland.

26  North Identify  Ten Mile River: 88 Regional  Salmon Creek: 86 Reference Sites  Russian River: 84  Central (>80)  Wilder Creek: 90 Site can serve as an example of  Arroyo de la Cruz: 86 what is possible in a region  Laguna Creek: 85  South  Gaviota Creek: 85

27  How often are BBEs open to marine influence?  How often are BBEs closed and filling vs closed and draining? Level 3 data  How much marsh gets inundated a various water levels?  How can this drive mouth management efforts  How can this drive restoration efforts and plant pallets?

28 Beach Berm The driver of variability in a BBE

29 Closed to marine Closed then open to marine environment environment

Closed vs. open systems

30 Marsh Plain Inundation Identifying the relationship between estuary water level and other abiotic factors (rain, wave angle, wave height, etc.)

31 Marsh Plain Inundation Which areas of the marsh are inundated more often, and how does that vary across time and space

32 Marsh Plain Inundation- plant palette Which plant species grow a various inundation amounts and where are those niches located in the estuary

Which species are you interested in promoting at a site post-restoration?

33 Marsh Plain Inundation- plant palette

34 Data Summary Documents

35 o

CANADA DEL REFUGIO CREEK: ESTUARY FACT SHEET

CANADA DEL REFUGIO CREEK Habitat Change Analysis

Historical Habitat Type (1871) Current Habitat Type (2012) ESTUARY FACT SHEET 120°4'20"W Historic Habitas t Type (11820°4'50"W 7) 120°4'20"W Current Habitat Type (21020°4'10"W 2)

Canada del Refugio estuary

N

N

"

"

0

'

0

'

8

8

2

2

N °

N °

"

4

"

4

0

' 3

0

' 3

8

8

2

2

°

°

4

4

3 State Park Location: Refugio State Beach 3 Coordinates: 34.463073, -120.069754

s

r

e

t Estuary Size: 2 ha t

e e

e

M

F

0

0

0

4

2 Estuary Area within State Park: 68.1% 6

0 Watershed Area: 20.8 sq. km 0

0

2

1

3 Watershed in Conservation: 33.8%

0 0

N

"

N

0

"

4

0

'

4 7

'

N

2

7

"

°

N

2 0

"

4

°

4

0 CRAM Attribute and Index Scores Watershed Information ' 3

4

7

4

' 3

2

7

°

2

4

°

3

4 3 F F AVERAGE ATTRIBUTE SITE SCORE REGION SCORE Support Documents Open Water Buffer and Landscape 40 66 Beach Dune Hydrology 58 68 Intertidal Flat Or Bar Physical Stru cture 50 54 Vegetated Wetland BioticStructur e 67 68 Vegetated Woody Vegetated Upland Index Score 54 64 Developed

Poor: 25-49 Fair: 50-74 Good: 75-100 CRAM index scores for the estuary compared to the South Coast Habitat type maps and charts for 1871 and 2012.n Habitat maps use USGS T-Sheets for the historical map and Natioal Region average. The site’s CRAM score (54) fell into the fanir Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery (2012) for the current map. All of the estuary’s historical vegetated wetland conditio c ategory. habitat has become vegetated upland habitat or has been developed. Some of the historical open water habitat has been lost. Watershed and state parnk locatio and boundar y map. Special Status Species Estuary Water Elevation and Temperature

Brackish water snail Coho salmon

Monarch butterfly Red-legged frog Saltmarsh common yellowthroat Steelhead Tidewater goby Western pond turtle

Western snowy plover

Present in estuary Present in watershed Graph shows % land cover ewithin entir wa t ershed compared to No known presence within a buffer of 2km upstream of outlet and 250 meters from stream. Land cover within the watershed is dominated by shrub/ Graph schows flutuat ion i n wat er elenvatio and t emperature, as well as flodi ng per iodi ci ty of ma r sh pl ai n from Known presence of select special status species at site (CNDDB 2017). grassland. October 2015–October 2017. Water temperatures are daily mean values. 36 Questions?

Kevin O’Connor Central Coast Wetlands Group at Moss Landing Marine Labs [email protected] 831-771-4495 www.centralcoastwetlands.org

37  Coordinate state wetland monitoring efforts with SP  Use of CRAM  Expand Data Loggers and Marsh Plain Surveys  Train staff in use of monitoring tools and survey of methods  Estimate ecosystem change to develop management Continued objectives Partnership  Complete Historical Change Analysis for all BBEs Opportunities  Establish metrics for gauging restoration success  Link Management Objectives with Monitoring efforts with CA State  Established CFD for all State Parks BBEs Parks  Identify and Prioritize Management Areas and set ecological goals  Work with RMD to develop system wide management strategies that can competitively seek additional state funding

38