2010 Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report

Pier 94 Wetland Enhancement MONITORING REPORT

J�� 1, 2010

Prepared by: T�� P�� S�� F�� Pier 1, The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111 Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

CONTENTS

1 – Background ...... 1

2 – Monitoring Overview ...... 1

3 – Site Sedimentation ...... 3

3.1 ‐ Methods ...... 3

3.2 – Results and Discussion ...... 3

4 – Site Revegetation ...... 5

4.1 ‐ Methods ...... 5

4 .2 – Results and Discussion ...... 6

5 – Species Representation ...... 7

5.1 – Field Methods ...... 7

5.2 ‐ Vegetation Categorization Criteria ...... 7

5.3 ‐ Proportion error correction ...... 7

5.4 ‐ Vegetation Density Weighting and Verification ...... 8

5.5 ‐ Results and Discussion ...... 8

6 – Coverage of Native and Non‐native Plant Species as compared to Reference Marsh ...... 10

7 – Suaeda californica assessment ...... 11

7.2 – Results and Discussion ...... 12

8 – Remote Sensing Monitoring ...... 13

8.1 ‐ Methods ...... 13

8.2 ‐ Results and Discussion ...... 13

9 – Summary ...... 14

Appendices ...... 16

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

Pier 94 wetlands and upland buffer zone

1 – BACKGROUND

Pier 94 is located just south of, and adjacent to the Islais Creek Inlet (see Figure B‐1, Appendix B), on land owned by the Port of San Francisco (Port). It is just north of Pier 96, which is a container shipping facility. The Port completed the Pier 94 wetland enhancement in 2006. The goals of this enhancement were to improve the physical, hydrologic, and aesthetic features of the wetland in order to increase its functional ecosystem value. The construction was designed to achieve these goals as follows:

• Channels were excavated to improve tidal flushing and provide varying levels of inundation to various sub‐habitat types. • Where practical, large and small construction debris were removed because it inhibits the growth of or displaces native salt marsh vegetation. • Large stands of invasive Eastern Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) were removed, and populations of Spartina and other invasive wetland plant species will be controlled to the extent feasible. • Limited and directed public access is provided. • The area of tidal marsh was expanded by excavating into existing upland areas.

2 – MONITORING OVERVIEW

Beginning October 28, 2006, monitoring has been conducted by volunteers under supervision of Golden Gate Audubon Society (GGAS) staff on eight separate occasions. Monitoring activities consist of:

• Measurement of plant density and diversity along six “shore‐normal “(perpendicular to shoreline, running from beachhead into marsh) transects. • Measurement of plant density and diversity along nine “high‐tide axis” (parallel to shore at high‐ tide line) transects. • Incidental observations at site, including Monitors’ observations of conditions at the site that are of possible relevance but are not part of the monitoring protocol and/or quantifiable. • Measurement of re‐bar pins designed to illustrate relative sedimentation. • Site photography at set pins and azimuths (magnetic compass direction) on transects. 1

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

• Measurement of specific Suaeda californica (California sea‐blite) plants, which were planted by GGAS shortly after the Port completed its wetland enhancement activities.

Figure B‐2 (Appendix B) shows the site layout, topography, and locations of each monitoring activity.

Not all of the sampling data collected by GGAS are incorporated in this report. The shore‐normal transects, sediment pins, site photography, and incidental observations are included specifically to addresses the monitoring requirements set forth San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Corrected Permit number M03‐14 (Box 1, below), and therefore only data applicable to these criteria are included. Site photographs have been taken by GGAS volunteers and are provided in Appendix A.

Box 1 – Sections II‐A‐1‐e and II‐D, Monitoring, BCDC Corrected Permit M‐03‐14

II‐A‐1‐e Every other year, starting on December 15th of the year following project completion, for a five‐year period, or until those portions of the restoration site are approximately 80% vegetated as compared with nearby reference marshes, whichever occurs first, the permittee shall report to the Commission on the effects of the project in restoring tidal marsh and transitional habitat at the restoration site. This report shall include measuring sedimentation rates, percentage of the site revegetated, approximate percentage representation of different plant species, and a qualitative assessment of growth rates for the tidal restoration area (e.g., selecting three dominant native tidal marsh plant species, measuring plant size and comparing these measurements to similar measurements taken at a nearby reference marsh), including adjacent transitional and upland habitats. Undesirable exotic plant species such as Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Spartina alterniflora, Broom, or Star thistle shall be reasonably controlled (coverage of less than 5 percent of their expected zone of growth during the five‐year monitoring period. Should adverse conditions be identified during the five‐year monitoring period, the permittee shall take corrective action as specified by or on behalf of the Commission.

II‐D The California sea blite restoration work authorized under Amendment No. One shall be constructed and monitored pursuant to the plan entitled, “Pier 94 Habitat Restoration and and Reintroduction of Califronia Sea‐ Blite (Suaeda californica), San Francisco, California”, prepared by Peter Baye, PhD., for the Golden Gate Audubon Society, dated September 2005. In accord with the plan, the permittee shall submit a total of five monitoring reports documenting the success of the restoration project to the Commission. The first monitoring report shall be submitted prior to December 31, 2006, and subsequent reports shall be submitted every year thereafter for a five‐ year period. These requirements can be separated into five elements:

1. Sedimentation rate 2. Site revegetation and assessment of plant growth 3. Plant species diversity 4. Colonization of the enhanced wetland area by undesirable exotic plant species and corrective action if over coverage is over 5% of their expected zone of growth 5. Condition of Suaeda californica at site

For each element, monitoring methodology and results of monitoring conducted to date are described in the following sections of this report. 2

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

3 – SITE SEDIMENTATION

3.1 ‐ METHODS Eight re‐bar pins were installed along four transects, for a total of 8 pins for the site. These fixed pins provided a baseline by which relative sedimentation is measured by measuring the distance (in cm) from the top of each pin to the sediment below.

These data have been tracked over the 13 monitoring sessions completed to date, between October 26, 2006 and October 22, 2009, and the inverse measurement (decreasing distance between sediment and pin indicates increasing sediment at the pin location) was analyzed for sediment change.

3.2 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 (below) describes the pin exposure for each pin on each monitoring dates. Note that as this is pin exposure, changes in sedimentation are inverse – a decrease in pin exposure equals increasing sedimentation, vice versa. The sensitivity of these methods to sources of error pre‐empts conclusion as to the nature of overall site sedimentation. These sources include:

• Public access to the site has resulted in pin removal / modification on multiple occasions. • Measurement error. While a measurement method is established, the variability of actual pin measurements occurs. This is especially true with the lower pins at the site (usually c‐pins), where dense vegetation and mud do not allow consistent measurement.

While these issues do not allow direct derivation of site sedimentation characteristics from these measurements, this does not totally render these measurements useless. When used in conjunction with corroboratory visual evidence (e.g., observation of erosional and depositional features at the site), they can help support staff site observations. The pin exposure data suggest that after initial sediment deposition following earthwork completed to create new wetland area, sedimentation rate has remained relatively flat. Qualitative site observations have shown no major visible evidence of ongoing erosion or deposition at the site.

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

Table 1. Measured sediment pin exposure (cm) for the Pier 94 wetland enhancement site.

2006 2007 2008 2009 Transect/Pin 10/28 1/27 4/26 8/4 10/5 2/9 5/4 8/3 11/8 2/12 5/14 8/13 10/22 B 72 51 52 52 51 55 53.25 51 50 50 51 50 N1 C 76 54 54 54 55 52 51.5 52 53 53 53 53 A 75 53 51 51 51 55 79.75 81.5 81 85 86 86 N2 B 68 46 47 47 49 ‐ 59 59.75 60 61 60 60.5 C 78 57 59 59 58 ‐ 55 54.5 54.5 54.5 55 55 A 72 53 47 47 53 52 84.5 85 85.5 85 91 88 N3 B 68 44 43 43 41.5 52 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

C 58 35 36 36 35.3 52 59 61 62 35 62 62 DATA

A 78 58 58 58 47 42 56 57.5 59 59.5 59 59.25 NO

S1 B 78 56 56 56 56.2 55 52 53.5 54.5 57 56 56 C 72 47 57 57 62 58 42.5 41.75 39.5 41 41 41 A 77 55 53 53 44.2 45 54 52 51.5 50 52.5 51.25 S2 B 78 56 57 57 58 58 55 54.25 53 54 55.5 54.75 C 65 44 45 45 54 52 42 41.75 40.6 42.5 43 42.75 A 79 55 56 56 58 56 53.25 52.5 52 50 53 50 S3 B 74 51 52 52 53 28 43.5 44 45 44 55 49.5 C 79 58 58 58 55 34 57 55.75 54 55 54 55 North Mean 70.88 49.13 48.63 48.63 49.23 53.00 ‐ 63.14 63.54 63.71 60.50 65.43 64.93 South Mean 75.56 53.33 54.67 54.67 54.16 47.56 ‐ 50.58 50.33 49.90 50.33 52.11 51.06 Overall Mean 73.35 51.35 51.82 51.82 51.84 49.73 ‐ 56.08 56.11 55.94 54.78 57.94 57.13

Figure 1. Trend of measured sediment pin exposure (cm) for the Pier 94 wetland enhancement site.

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

4 – SITE REVEGETATION

4.1 ‐ METHODS In order to estimate the rate and scope of revegetation at this site, two primary sources of data were used:

1. Vegetation density data from shore‐normal transects 2. Visual estimation based on site photography over time

During each monitoring event conducted between 10/28/06 and 8/3/08, Monitors recorded their estimation of each quadrat’s density class using a 6‐code classification system (with a 7th “code” added during post‐sampling analysis of data – see information below regarding the “0” code). These vegetation density data were used to estimate overall vegetation density for the site.

Box 2 – Shore‐normal Transect details

A total of six shore‐normal transects (perpendicular to waterline, parallel to the effective fall‐line (steepest path on the slope) from beachhead/upland to marsh): three in the Northern basin, and three in the Southern basin of the site. Transects were delineated with permanently staked rebar pins. During monitoring, a meter tape is laid along the transect demarcators (pins). This effectively splits the transect into 1 meter lengths – “sub‐transects” or quadrats. Using the meter tape as a baseline, monitors then visually estimated and recorded the following information for the 30cm block around the tape: 1. Vegetation cover density (Classes: 1 (0*‐5%), 2 (6‐25%), 3 (26‐50%), 4 (51‐75%), 5 (76‐95%), 6 (96‐100%), *No Cover = 0) 2. Average height of dominant plant species 3. Individual species representation of total vegetation cover

Average densities in each transect and overall average density were tracked over time. However, some inconsistencies in how Monitors recorded density classes required correction. On monitoring dates between 10/28/2006 through 5/4/2008, monitors recorded bare ground (no vegetation) as either 1 or 0. After discussion, both Port and GGAS staff decided that the best treatment of the data would be to convert all bare/ no cover values to “0.” This was possible because even when recorded density measurements may vary between these numbers, a density of class “1” with no recorded vegetation and/ or comments such as “bare”, “sand”, or “N/A” very likely indicates no vegetation cover. All monitoring dates on and after 8/3/2008 utilized this new standard.

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

4 .2 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Vegetation density values in the 6 shore‐normal transects at Pier 94 have continually increased, from a mean vegetation density class of slightly over 1 (1‐5% cover) to right around 3, at 26‐50% cover (see Table 2 and Figure 2, below). It is important to note that these values do not relate to overall site vegetation density for a variety of reasons. First, the areas covered by the six transects over‐ represent less vegetated sand and gravel transition zone areas, and under‐represent more vegetated marsh plain areas, as relative to actual site habitat composition. However, trends in vegetation representation can be confidently extracted from the data, and these should be interpreted as such. The vegetation data indicate that vegetation density has continued to increase during 2009.

Also, these trends were supported by vegetation cover estimates derived from aerial images, where 2009 marsh vegetation cover was measured to be about 46% (see Section 9 for details).

Table 2. Mean measured vegetation density classes for Pier 94 wetland enhancement site.

2006 2007 2008 2009 Date: 10/28 1/27 4/26 8/4 10/5 2/9 5/4 8/3 11/9 2/27 5/1 8/13 10/22 N‐1 0.67 0.17 0.83 1.25 0.67 1.25 1.67 1.25 1.08 1.25 1.25 1.83 1.75

N‐2 1.87 1.67 2.47 2.03 2.47 2.71 2.57 2.00 2.00 1.86 2.00 2.47 2.60 mean N‐3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 1.22 1.22 2.50 1.22 1.33 1.33 S‐1 2.45 1.91 2.55 2.91 3.20 3.64 3.36 2.91 2.82 3.45 4.27 4.27 4.09

Transect S‐2 1.42 1.39 1.37 2.21 3.05 2.26 2.21 4.10 4.00 3.80 4.40 4.60 4.44 S‐3 1.60 2.81 3.33 3.07 2.87 3.13 2.67 3.07 2.40 3.79 2.80 3.40 3.13 Site mean: 1.33 1.32 1.76 1.91 2.04 2.17 2.38 2.35 2.25 2.59 2.59 3.01 2.89 Std. Dev. 2.04 1.74 1.69 1.88 2.06 1.84 1.86 1.82 1.89 2.05 1.94 1.89 1.90 (Classes: 1 (0*‐5%), 2 (6‐25%), 3 (26‐50%), 4 (51‐75%), 5 (76‐95%), 6 (96‐100%), *No Cover = 0)

Figure 2. Trend of mean measured vegetation density class for Pier 94 wetland enhancement site.

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

5 – SPECIES REPRESENTATION

5.1 – FIELD METHODS The relative abundance of different plant species, an indicator of species diversity, was measured by recording the dominant species in each quadrat along each of the eight shore‐normal transects, and the relative proportion of each vegetation type (species, genus, or general vegetation type depending on available data). Each shore‐normal transect provides a representative sample of the cross‐section of the site from upland/beachhead to marsh (see Box 2, Shore Normal Transect Methodology). The aim is to assess the overall species composition and diversity over the cross‐section of the shoreline, and changes in the species composition and diversity over time.

5.2 ‐ VEGETATION CATEGORIZATION CRITERIA As sampling was primarily done by volunteer “Citizen Scientists” overseen by trained Audubon Society staff, small errors and vagaries of identification may have occurred, some of which can be addressed during data analysis. Therefore, a hierarchy for categorization (with the first being the most specific, and most desirable from a data analysis perspective) was devised in order to consistently group plant identifications. It is as follows:

1. If the identified plant was identified to a certain or most likely species, it was identified as that Species. If not, then: 2. If the plant was identified to its genus, it was classified as such Genera. If not, then: 3. If it was identified to be of a common name group without enough information as to the plant’s genera, it was grouped by its identified Common‐name or popular distinction (e.g. “Grasses” or “Thistles”). If not, then: 4. Plants were placed in the category of Unknown/ Other when they were listed as unidentified or when they met one of these three conditions: i. Vague and/or general identification, AND from this identification status as non‐native/ introduced could be reasonably assumed AND makeup of a relatively small proportion of sample date ii. Reliable identification but makeup of relatively small proportion (<1%) of overall transect composition AND status as non‐native/ introduced iii. Vague identification beyond assumption

5.3 ‐ PROPORTION ERROR CORRECTION Proportion error correction was necessary where both the species total did not add to 100% and this total roughly corresponded with the recorded vegetation density class. Such errors may have resulted from misunderstanding by the recorders on sampling protocol: that vegetation makeup was to be recorded as a percentage of total area of quadrat block. This assumption of error was backed up by a repeated pattern of error occurrence on one sampling date in only a few transects, with only a few recorders making the errors. These errors were corrected by changing the absolute proportion of each 7

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

species' makeup to its proportional makeup (e.g., a quadrat with 25% X and 25% Y of total makeup, with a proportional makeup (Species / Total Vegetation) of 50% X and 50% Y.

5.4 ‐ VEGETATION DENSITY WEIGHTING AND VERIFICATION Relative density of vegetation categories can be compared against one another, but this ignores the variance of density within each transect. Therefore, density values were weighted to represent increased species representation in more dense quadrats.

The relative proportions of different vegetation categories within each quadrat were first converted into decimal form (e.g. 100% = 1), and then multiplied with the density class of the quadrat. This gives an index that describes the trend of representation and related density in a consistent format. These weighted values were then used in determining species composition as a proportion of total composition.

Any estimation of vegetative density is prone to error due to the subjectivity the monitoring procedure. Therefore, an objective measure was needed for verification purposes. This is found in the measure of relative vegetation density, which is the proportion of single vegetation type representation to all vegetation type occurrences.

5.5 ‐ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In the last year of monitoring (see table 3, section 7), the most dominant species continue to be Pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica, 28.6% average relative frequency), Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata, 12% average relative frequency), and, in the transition and upland portions of the transect, non‐native annual grasses (10.5% average relative frequency). As shown in Figure B‐2 (Appendix B), the existing transects traverse upland to marsh areas, without elevation control. Therefore, an accurate delineation of specifically marsh vegetation cannot accurately be made. However, looking at species representation can give a clear understanding of general transect‐area trends. The highest representative native species are ones normally found in marsh plain and transitional areas, while the highest frequency values of non‐natives represent vegetation normally found in upland to transitional areas. Because of these continued measurements, and also due to transect over‐representation of upland and transition areas, we can generally conclude that our values under‐represent the actual occurrence and cover of native plants at the site. Monitoring conducted during the first two years after construction (October 2006 through August 2008, report submitted 10/15/08) found that wetland vegetation is predominantly native, without a significant change is species diversity. Monitoring in 2009 resulted in similar findings.

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

Table 3. Relative frequency at five most recent monitoring dates for shore‐normal transects at Pier 94 monitoring site, and 2002 Heron’s Head Park monitoring.

Heron's Common 1‐year Head Park Scientific name name 11/9/08 2/27/09 5/1/09 8/13/09 10/22/09 average (2002) Ambrosia Silver 0.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% chamissonis beachweed Atriplex Spearscale 4.0% triangularis Baccharis Coyote Brush 2.0% 1.5% 0.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% pilularis Distichlis spicata Saltgrass 16.0% 7.6% 11.9% 11.6% 12.8% 12.0% 14.5% Frankenia salina Alkali heath 7.0% 6.1% 8.2% 11.6% 7.1% 8.0% 2.5%

Grindelia stricta Gum plant 3.0% 1.5% 2.2% 3.1% 3.5% 2.7% 3.4% Fleshy Jaumea carnosa 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 10.5%

Native jaumea Limonium Marsh 2.0% 3.8% 2.2% 2.3% 2.8% 2.6% 9.3% californicum rosemary Plantago Sea/ Alkali 0.6% maritima plantain Sarcocornia Pickleweed 36.0% 25.2% 25.4% 29.5% 27.7% 28.7% 35.5% pacifica Spergularia Saltmarsh 0.7% 0.7% marina Sand‐Spurry Suaeda California 4.0% 2.3% 3.0% 3.1% 2.8% 3.0% californica Sea‐Blite All native: 70.0% 48.1% 54.5% 65.1% 61.0% 59.7% 80.3%

Cakile edulenta Sea Rocket 1.5% 0.8% 1.1% 0.6% Garland Chrysanthemum daisy, Crown 5.3% 5.2% 5.4% 2.8% 4.7% coronarium Daisy Melilotus sp. Sweet clover 5.0% 12.2% 7.5% 2.3% 0.7% 5.5% 1.5% Foeniculum sp. Fennel 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.7% 1.2% 0.3% Hemizonia sp. Tarweed 1.5% 0.7% 1.1% Malva Bull Mallow 0.7% 0.7% nicaeensis

Brasica sp. Mustard spp. 0.8% 2.1% 1.5%

native Parapholis ‐ Sickle grass 6.0% 4.7% 0.7% 3.8% 8.0% incurva Non Picris echioides Oxtongue 0.8% 1.5% 0.7% 1.0% Plantago Rat‐tail 3.0% 3.8% 5.2% 4.7% 5.0% 4.3% 1.9% coronopus plantain Salsola soda Salsola soda 2.0% 1.5% 2.3% 1.9% 1.5% Centaurea sp. or Thistles 1.0% 2.2% 1.6% 1.6% Sonchus sp. Vicia sp. Vetch 3.1% 3.1% Non‐native annual grasses 4.0% 15.3% 10.4% 10.1% 12.8% 10.5% 1.2% Unidentified small forbs 14.0% 6.1% 0.7% 12.8% 8.4% 0.3% All non‐ 30.0% 49.6% 44.8% 32.6% 38.3% 39.1% 15.3% native:

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

6 – COVERAGE OF NATIVE AND NONNATIVE PLANT SPECIES AS COMPARED TO REFERENCE MARSH

The relative coverage of native and non‐native plants was analyzed using the methods noted in the above species representation section. For comparison of monitoring results, a nearby reference marsh was chosen. Heron’s Head Park (Pier 98), about one mile away from Pier 94, is a wetland restoration site that is of similar origin and condition to Pier 94 – Both were created from fill material.

As the restoration project at Heron’s Head Park is older than at Pier 94, and due to the availability of data, monitoring data were chosen from a year that reflects the relative “age” (years after construction) of each site as a restoration project. A challenge, as noted before, is the establishment of “true” cover patterns from limited sampling. The relative frequency of native and non‐native species are presented in Table 3.

As in previous monitoring, native species, particularly Salicornia pacifica (Pickleweed), Distichilis spicata (Saltgrass) and Frankenia salina (Alkali heath), predominate within the marsh plain. In marsh and transitional areas, the invasive species of concern noted in the permit (see box 1) do not occur at ≥5% cover.

Figure 3. Proportional representation of native vegetation at Pier 94.

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

7 – SUAEDA CALIFORNICA ASSESSMENT

Suaeda californica

7.1 ‐ METHODS: During the quarterly monitoring sessions, the established Suaeda californica plants at the site are monitored for:

Maximum Width: The maximum spread of foliage in any dimension of each plant

Cross Width: The maximum spread of foliage in an axis perpendicular to the max width

Percent Alive: A visible estimate of the proportion of the plant alive

Percent Dead: A visible estimate of the proportion of the plant dead (inverse of the above measurement).

Percent Producing Seed: The proportion of the live plant with fruit / seed on outer stems – note that generally, this proportion is estimated based off of areas expected to be seeding. For example, woody stems would not be included (although younger growth on these stems would be).

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

7.2 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 4. Mean Suaeda californica plant size metrics

The data indicate that the Suaeda planted by GGAS continue to grow, increasing width and height over time. The percentage of each plant alive/dead and percentage of plants that are producing seeds are consistent with those observed during the first two years of monitoring.

Table 4. Measured Suaeda californica plant size metrics

2006 2007 2008 2009 Mean Values: 10/28 1/27 4/26 8/4 11/5 2/9 5/4 8/3 11/8 2/12 5/1 8/31 10/22 # of plants 26 25 25 24 24 24 24 23 21 21 21 21 21 Maximum width (m) 1.41 1.52 1.49 1.68 1.94 2.05 2.05 2.06 1.97 2.14 1.93 2.06 2.23 SD: 0.46 0.48 0.42 0.59 0.74 0.76 0.67 0.77 0.58 0.76 0.78 0.74 0.80 Cross width (m) 1.19 1.32 1.17 1.47 1.70 1.80 1.81 1.82 1.72 1.87 1.70 1.80 2.03 SD: 0.45 0.47 0.43 0.57 0.68 0.77 0.72 0.63 0.60 0.81 0.71 0.75 0.79 % of plant alive 67% 76% 70% 54% 63% 59% 61% 72% 71% 80% 58% 73% 69% SD: 17% 21% 15% 19% 28% 23% 18% 21% 24% 18% 36% 14% 14%

% dead 33% 24% 30% 35% 34% 41% 39% 28% 29% 20% 42% 27% 31% SD: 17% 21% 15% 23% 29% 23% 18% 21% 24% 18% 36% 14% 14% % producing seed 42% 11% 4% 47% 70% 46% 11% 45% 78% 73% 7% 58% 56% SD: 22% 12% 1% 36% 37% 28% 15% 35% 24% 26% 15% 26% 38%

Height (cm) 24.5 24.4 28.5 32.6 35.9 27.0 28.7 32.1 40.37 33.38 37.71 42.71 48.00 SD: 5.0 4.3 4.9 6.6 9.0 10.6 6.9 9.1 9.51 7.54 11.13 18.14 25.08 Shoot length (cm) 4.4 2.2 4.5 3.0 11.0 2.4 2.8 5.3 2.12 2.90 3.57 3.33 1.93 SD: 1.7 1.0 1.8 1.0 3.7 0.8 4.9 5.0 1.07 1.03 2.44 1.32 1.18

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

8 – REMOTE SENSING MONITORING

8.1 ‐ METHODS To aid in quantification of salt marsh vegetation at Pier 94, the Port evaluated infrared aerial photos of Pier 94 and the reference marsh, Heron’s Head Park. From aerial photos taken in 2005 and 2009 (Table 5, below) Port staff used image analysis software to calculate the surface area (m2) of different types of ground cover (e.g. vegetation, bare soil, water), including salt marsh vegetation.

Table 5. Data sources

Data Source 1‐meter multi‐spectral (near infrared, red, green bands used) National Agricultural Imagery Program orthoimagery (Acquired summers 2005 and 2009): used to calculate (NAIP) via the California Spatial Information surface area of ground cover types at both sites. Library (CASIL)

6‐inch visible color orthoimagery (Acquired 2004 and 2009): Internal – City and County of San Francisco used to “train” the software to recognize different cover types. DPW

1‐meter digital elevation model (derived from 2007 LiDAR flights): Internal – City and County of San Francisco used to delineate area subject to tidal action. DTIS

This analysis evaluated only the wetland enhancement project area at each site. Port staff used known areas of each cover type (i.e. salt marsh, pond, gravel bar) to identify each type in the high‐resolution orthophotos, effectively “training” the image processor to recognize the spectral patterns for these cover types. The image processing software then calculated the area of each cover type for both sites at 2005 and 2009. Port staff visually checked the image output for accuracy.

Because there are so many variables in the aerial extent of different surface types within the wetlands, including tidal fluctuations, algal growth, and other dynamic processes present in a tidal marsh, the areal coverage of vegetation calculated by the software is not an absolute value. However, because the images of both Pier 94 and Heron’s Head Park were taken at the same time, variables such as tidal height and weather would be the same at both sites. Consequently the relative coverage by type between the two sites during each year is accurate.

8.2 ‐ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the classification for both dates are shown below (table 5), and in Appendix B, Figure B‐3 (map format). Due to the above‐noted issues, these should not necessarily be understood as a precise measure of the actual ground cover. However the large increase in the areal extent of vegetation cover at both sites between 2005 and 2009 indicates an actual increase in vegetation coverage. Increased vegetation coverage at Pier 94 is further demonstrated by the fact that the proportion of coverage by vegetation at Pier 94 relative to Heron’s Head Park (where relative rate=% wetland vegetation at Pier 94 /% wetland vegetation at HHP) increased from 0.7 in summer 2005, to .82 in summer 2009. While the images may slightly over or under‐represent actual coverage, the comparison between the two sites shows that in 2009, the % cover by wetland vegetation within the project area at Pier 94 was at least .80 of the % cover by wetland vegetation within the project area at Heron’s Head Park.

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

The 2009 image documents conditions at Heron’s Head Park 10 years after construction and conditions at Pier 94 three years after construction. The fact that % cover by wetland vegetation at Pier 94 after three years is 80% of that at Heron’s Head Park after 10 years indicates that salt marsh establishment after construction at Pier 94 exceeds the goal of 80% cover relative to the reference marsh.

Table 5. Classification results.

Pier 94 Year Area vegetated (sq. m) % vegetated rate relative to HHP 2005 4663 21% 0.7 2009 10305 46% 0.82 Heron's Head Park (HHP) Year Area vegetated (sq. m) % vegetated rate relative to Pier 94 2005 11485 30% 1.43 2009 21566 56% 1.22

9 – SUMMARY

1. SEDIMENTATION RATE Although the measurement method is subject to significant potential for inaccuracy, the data appear to reflect initial sediment deposition after project implementation and relatively stable sediment elevation (relative to pin) thereafter.

2. SITE REVEGETATION Transect data continue to show increasing density and height of vegetation, suggesting that the desired increase in vegetation is occurring. The BCDC Permit requires monitoring for five years or until the portions of the site subject to tidal action are 80% vegetated as compared to a nearby reference marsh, whichever comes first. Heron’s Head Park, located less than a mile away from the site, has similar substrate and vegetation characteristics, and was subject to essentially the same wetland restoration methodology. It serves as an appropriate reference marsh. Three years after wetland creation at Heron’s Head Park, monitoring found that vegetation cover on the constructed marsh plain was 15‐20% (URS, 2003). Because the monitoring methods at the two sites were different, a specific quantitative comparison between the two sites is not possible; however, monitoring at Pier 94 suggests that revegetation in the constructed wetland area is proceeding at an acceptable rate relative to Heron’s Head Park. This is corroborated by measurements derived from the analysis of aerial images, where ground cover classification of vegetation at Pier 94 is estimated at 83% the coverage of Heron’s Head Park

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

3. PLANT SPECIES DIVERSITY The relative percentage of native and non‐native vegetation throughout the site continues to show trends observed during the first two years of monitoring: three native species; Pickleweed, Saltgrass and Alkali heath, all of which are facultative or obligate wetland species, are the predominant species in the previously existing and created/enhanced marsh area. The total number of different species found in the marsh have not changed over time.

4. COLONIZATION OF THE ENHANCED WETLAND AREA BY UNDESIRABLE EXOTIC PLANT SPECIES AND CORRECTIVE ACTION IF OVER COVERAGE IS OVER 5% OF THEIR EXPECTED ZONE OF GROWTH Monitoring has not found significant colonization of the enhanced wetland area by undesirable non‐ native species

5. ESTABLISHMENT OF SUEADA CALIFORNICA Sueada californica planted in conjunction with the Pier 94 wetland enhancement project continue to survive, grow and produce seed.

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

APPENDIX A

SITE PHOTOGRAPHY

PLATE 1: North basin, photo pin 8, azimuth 270 degrees (West)

Plate 1a: 1/27/2007 Plate 1b: 8/3/2008

Plate 1c: 2/12/2009

PLATE 2: South basin, photo pin 16, azimuth 45 degrees (Northeast)

Plate 2a: 10/26/2006 Plate 2b: 1/27/2007

Plate 2c: 2/12/2009 Plate 2d: 5/14/2009

PLATE 3: South basin, photo pin 20, azimuth 270 degrees (West)

Plate 3a: 10/26/2006 Plate 3b: 4/26/2007

Plate 3c: 2/12/2009 Plate 3d: 5/14/2009

PLATE 4: South basin, photo pin 13, azimuth 0 degrees (North)

Plate 4A: 10/26/2006 Plate 4b: 1/27/2007

Plate 4c: 2/12/2009 Plate 4d: 5/14/2009

Port of San Francisco Pier 94 Wetlands Monitoring Report – May 2010

APPENDIX B

FIGURES

Overview: Southern Waterfront - San Francisco, CA Miles 0.5 1 2

San Francisco Bay

India Basin

nset Area: Pier 94 Wetland Enhancement Area* Feet 0 250 500 1,000

*Orthophoto from 2004 aerial imagery Figure B-1 Pier 94 Wetland Enhancement Site Location San Francisco, CA 554950 555000 555050 555100 555150

Islais Channel Transect Pin Location Limits of Work 0 0 5 5 9 9 7 7

7 Photo Directions 7 1 1 4 4 Shore-Normal Transects Upland Transition Zone/ High Marsh Marsh 8 0 0 0 0 9 9 7 7 7 7 1 1 4 4

N-3 5 9 0 -2 1 N San Francisco 0 0

5 6 Bay 5 8 8 7 7 7 7 1 1 4 4

1 5 1 1

1 2 3 -1 4 N 0 0 0 0 8 8 2 2 7 7 0 0 7 7 1 1 4 4 5

5 20 1

5 0 0 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1

4 5 4 5

5 5 5 5 5

5 3 2 1 1 14 1 2 1 0 S-3 5

1 5 0 0

0 1 0

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1

4 -2 1 4 5 8 1 S

5 1 1 6 9 1 20 S - 1 10 15

5 15 1 5 1

0 5 5 0 5 1 1 5 5

6 1 6 7 7 7 7

1 554950 555000 555050 555100 555150 1 4 4 Fig. B-2: Pier 94 Wetland 0 10 20 40 60 80 100 Meters Enhancement Site 0 50 100 200 300 Feet UTM Zone 10S, NAD83 Datum ------1 foot elevation contours from NAvD 88 Port of San Francisco, CA ------Site Topography and Vegetation Monitoring Transects Transect pin locations accurate to 3 m HERON''S HEAD PARK -- 2005 PIIER 94 -- 2005

HERON''S HEAD PARK -- 2009 PIIER 94 -- 2009

Fig. B-3: Remotely sensed vegetation cover Project area subject to tidal action Sparse vegetation Pier 94 and Heron's Head Park Dense vegetation Port of San Francisco, CA 0 50 100 200 300 400 Meters Note: Underlying imagery for reference only