Appendix a White Slough Beneficial Reuse Plan Drawings
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appendix A White Slough Beneficial Reuse Plan Drawings Appendix B Eelgrass Mitigation Plan JANUARY 2016 DRAFT Eelgrass Mitigation Plan for the Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Project PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Stillwater Sciences Conservation District 850 G Street, Suite K Arcata, CA 95521 601 Startare Drive Eureka, CA 95501 Stillwater Sciences DRAFT Eelgrass Mitigation Plan for the Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Project Suggested citation: Stillwater Sciences. 2016. DRAFT Eelgrass Mitigation Plan for the Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Project. Humboldt County, California. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Arcata, California for the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District, Eureka, California. Cover photos: Photos taken by Stillwater Sciences 2014–2015. Eelgrass at mouth of Fisherman’s Channel (top left), Fields Landing Mitigation area (top right, bottom right, and bottom left). January 2016 Stillwater Sciences i DRAFT Eelgrass Mitigation Plan for the Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Project Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Impacts on Existing Eelgrass Beds .............................................................................. 4 1.3 Regulatory Setting and Compliance Requirements ..................................................... 6 1.4 Proposed mitigation ratios ........................................................................................... 6 1.5 Mitigation Approach .................................................................................................... 7 1.6 Sea Level Rise ............................................................................................................. 9 2 PROPOSED EELGRASS MITIGATION ............................................................................ 9 2.1 Existing Ecological Conditions.................................................................................. 10 2.2 Mitigation Implementation ........................................................................................ 11 2.2.1 Piling removal ..................................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Gravel/cobble fill excavation .............................................................................. 12 2.2.3 Eelgrass establishment ........................................................................................ 12 2.2.4 Best management practices ................................................................................. 13 2.3 Mitigation Goals and Performance Criteria ............................................................... 13 2.4 Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 14 2.4.1 Fields Landing mitigation area ............................................................................ 14 2.4.2 Fisherman’s Channel dredging area .................................................................... 14 2.5 Expectation of Success .............................................................................................. 14 2.6 Sea Level Rise ........................................................................................................... 15 3 REPORTING ........................................................................................................................ 15 4 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN .............................................................................................. 15 5 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................ 16 Tables Table 1. Projected sea level rise1 in Humboldt Bay, per CCC .................................................... 9 Figures Figure 1. Project area. ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Area. ........................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Existing eelgrass coverage in Fisherman’s Channel overlaid with dredging footprint and eelgrass impact interval. ......................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Fields Landing mitigation area. ..................................................................................... 8 Figure 5. Remnant pilings and gravel/cobble fill in the mitigation area. .................................... 10 Figure 6. Eroding shoreline, remnant pilings, and gravel/cobble fill in the mitigation area. ...... 11 January 2016 Stillwater Sciences ii DRAFT Eelgrass Mitigation Plan for the Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Project 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Project Description The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District (Harbor District) is proposing to conduct maintenance dredging of Fisherman’s Channel as part of a beneficial reuse dredging pilot project (Project) to facilitate improved navigation in the channel via dredging and subsequent beneficial reuse of the dredged sediments for salt marsh restoration at the White Sough Unit of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Fisherman’s Channel is located in King Salmon, California, approximately 2.5 miles south of the City of Eureka along Humboldt Bay (Figure 1). Currently, Fisherman’s Channel is inaccessible to larger vessels at a lower low tide due to a bar that has formed at the channel entrance. Dredging of the mouth of Fisherman’s Channel and main channel is proposed to take place in summer or fall 2016. The areas to be dredged are shown in Figure 2. Dredging activities for the King Salmon residential canals that connect with the Fisherman’s Channel are not part of this Project because the feasibility, funding, and timeline for dredging those canals are unknown at this time. The Project objectives are described in the project description of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study and summarized below: Dredge the channel in the Fisherman’s Channel to restore safe and consistent boat navigation at all tidal heights Provide dredged material to the White Sough Unit of the Refuge for beneficial reuse by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for salt marsh restoration Carry out the Project to provide agencies with operations data that will facilitate future dredge and beneficial reuse design, permitting, and implementation elsewhere in Humboldt Bay Conduct water quality monitoring that will guide future dredging operations elsewhere within Humboldt Bay Implement and monitor success of eelgrass (Zostera marina) and longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) mitigation Establish an acceptable standard protocol for sediment sampling methods and analysis for future dredging to focus on Constituents of Concern (COC) and possibly reduce redundancy in the sampling suite Provide Harbor District staff with dredging and beneficial reuse experience, particularly to address boat navigation, habitat restoration, and sea level rise issues within Humboldt Bay Inform a Humboldt Bay Sediment Master Plan Portions of this Project have the potential to impact eelgrass and longfin smelt, requiring mitigation. The very low risk of take of longfin smelt associated with the Project will be fully mitigated through implementation of this eelgrass mitigation plan. The purpose of this mitigation and monitoring plan is to identify the amount of eelgrass habitat that requires mitigation, identify the location for completing the mitigation requirement, outline mitigation conceptual design and implementation steps, define performance criteria, describe the monitoring and reporting protocols, and describe the maintenance and remedial action plans. January 2016 Stillwater Sciences 1 DRAFT Eelgrass Mitigation Plan for the Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Project Figure 1. Project area. January 2016 Stillwater Sciences 2 DRAFT Eelgrass Mitigation Plan for the Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Project Figure 2. Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Area. January 2016 Stillwater Sciences 3 DRAFT Eelgrass Mitigation Plan for the Fisherman’s Channel Dredging Project 1.2 Impacts on Existing Eelgrass Beds Eelgrass is present and widely distributed in Fisherman’s Channel and will be affected by dredging activities. There are a total of 3.03 acres (ac) of eelgrass in the main portion of the Fisherman’s Channel and an additional 1.9 ac in the Residential Canals (Stillwater Sciences 2012). The Project has been modified from the original design to substantially reduce the amount of eelgrass impacted. The dredging footprint was greatly reduced within the entire main channel to include only those specific locations where sediment accumulations are posing a navigation hazard. In addition, the dredging depth was decreased in most of the channel to allow for eelgrass to recolonize the channel following dredging. This change in dredging depth and width has resulted in a reduction of the eelgrass impact area from 2.8 ac to 1.2 ac. The entrance of Fisherman’s Channel will be dredged to a depth of -8 ft mean lower low water (MLLW) and will experience relatively frequent maintenance dredging (i.e., every 10 years) in the future to maintain boat access into Fisherman’s Channel during low tides (Figure 2). The remainder of the dredging area farther up the channel